• FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Big respect to researchers who publish and share statistically insignificant results.

    Instead of doing what is far too common in science, manipulating the data until you find “significance” through twisted interpretations.

      • Probius@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Is it valid science if you re-test the one that had the link to see if it was a fluke?

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 days ago

          Not just valid, I’d argue important. It doesn’t make the most exciting headlines and doesn’t get funding very well, though, so it’s not done nearly as often as it should be. A big part of science is not taking things at face value and verifying that there is sufficient proof for claims.

          Plus, if both results agree, it statistically tightens the probability of a coincidence. The chances of a 5% chance event happening twice in a row is 0.25%, and three times in a row is 0.0125% so repetition can make the results more certain.

  • chonomaiwokurae@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    9 days ago

    Proving that something doesn’t work can be valuable data, too. Especially in research close to industrial interests… celebrate failures!

    • drre@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 days ago

      well yeah, but there is money in knowing what to avoid. in academia it’s more like “why can’t i reproduce this effect i read about in this fancy paper, am i stupid or what”, when maybe, they just got lucky, or had plenty of very reasonable analysis options to choose from, or simply fudged the numbers. i fear that in much of academia there is a huge incentive to publish at whatever cost

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 days ago

    Make sure you publish that shit somehow so the next person doesn’t waste their time on the same experiment.

      • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        I can say with some pride that I have at least co-authored papers with null results, and they did get published. I’m not arguing that what you suggest isn’t true, but I have hope.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 days ago

    I remember listening to an episode of TWiV where they bemoaned that more negative results weren’t published. They’re useful, too, just not nearly as cool and flashy as positive results.

  • miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    “Give me six lines of data harvested from the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.”

    – Pileated Woodpecker Richdude

OSZAR »