Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting

@article{Ioannidis2012WhySI,
  title={Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting},
  author={John P. A. Ioannidis},
  journal={Perspectives on Psychological Science},
  year={2012},
  volume={7},
  pages={645 - 654}
}
  • J. Ioannidis
  • Published 1 November 2012
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science
The ability to self-correct is considered a hallmark of science. However, self-correction does not always happen to scientific evidence by default. The trajectory of scientific credibility can fluctuate over time, both for defined scientific fields and for science at-large. History suggests that major catastrophes in scientific credibility are unfortunately possible and the argument that “it is obvious that progress is made” is weak. Careful evaluation of the current status of credibility of… 

Tables and Topics from this paper

Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project
TLDR
It is argued that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-Correction.
Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication
TLDR
Six theses are offered that aim to put science and technology studies and science activism into dialog to show why effective reforms will need to confront issues of disciplinary difference.
Open Peer Commentary
With the growing number of fraudulent and nonr replicability of experiments performed in laboratories world practices that investigators may be using to increase the replicability. We laud them for
Self-Correct ? A Social Epistemic Study
Advocates of the self-corrective thesis argue that scientific method will refute false theories and find closer approximations to the truth in the long run. I discuss a contemporary interpretation of
Ideological Bias in Social Psychological Research
“Getting it right” is the sine qua non of science (Funder et al., 2013 ). Science can tolerate individual mistakes and fl awed theories, but only if it has reliable mechanisms for correction.
Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study.
  • Felipe Romero
  • Sociology, Medicine
    Studies in history and philosophy of science
  • 2016
TLDR
It is argued that methodological explanations of the "replicability crisis" in psychology are limited and an alternative explanation in terms of biases is proposed and suggested that scientific self-correction should be understood as an interaction effect between inference methods and social structures.
Post-truth, anti-truth, and can’t-handle-the-truth
People generally report positive attitudes to science and scientists (Gauchat, 2012). It is valued for the contribution that it makes to social, cultural, and economic progress. For many people,
The natural selection of bad science
TLDR
A 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioural sciences is presented and it is shown that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power, and that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration.
Welcoming Quality in Non-Significance and Replication Work, but Moving Beyond the p-Value
The self-correcting nature of psychological and educational science has been seriously questioned. Recent special issues of Perspectives on Psychological Science and Psychology of Aesthetics,
From Discovery to Justification: Outline of an Ideal Research Program in Empirical Psychology
TLDR
It is argued that the replicability crisis is “home-made” because more sophisticated strategies can deliver results the successful replication of which is sufficiently probable, and can be overcome by integrating empirical results into genuine research programs.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 62 REFERENCES
The Psychology of Replication and Replication in Psychology
  • G. Francis
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
  • 2012
TLDR
The implications of this observation are described and how to test for too much successful replication by using a set of experiments from a recent research paper are demonstrated.
Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined
  • H. Pashler, C. Harris
  • Sociology, Medicine
    Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
  • 2012
TLDR
It is argued that there are no plausible concrete scenarios to back up such forecasts and that what is needed is not patience, but rather systematic reforms in scientific practice.
Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science
  • R. Giner-Sorolla
  • Sociology, Medicine
    Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
  • 2012
TLDR
To open the bottleneck, putting structures in place to reward broader forms of information sharing beyond the exquisite art of present-day journal publication is suggested, suggesting a more palatable solution to the crisis in psychological research.
“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
TLDR
These results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.
Scientific Utopia
TLDR
Strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation are developed that account for ordinary human motivations and biases and can reduce the persistence of false findings.
The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science
TLDR
This paper considers 13 meta-analyses covering 281 primary studies in various fields of psychology and finds indications of biases and/or an excess of significant results in seven, highlighting the need for sufficiently powerful replications and changes in journal policies.
Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology
  • G. Francis
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Psychonomic bulletin & review
  • 2012
TLDR
Application of this test reveals evidence of publication bias in two prominent investigations from experimental psychology that have purported to reveal evidence of extrasensory perception and to indicate severe limitations of the scientific method.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
TLDR
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.
An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research
TLDR
This article proposes that researchers preregister their studies and indicate in advance the analyses they intend to conduct, and proposes that only these analyses deserve the label “confirmatory,” and only for these analyses are the common statistical tests valid.
The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: causes, consequences, and remedies.
  • S. Maxwell
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Psychological methods
  • 2004
TLDR
Underpowered studies persist in the psychological literature and the effects on efforts to create a cumulative science are examined and the "curse of multiplicities" plays a central role.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...