You're viewing a single thread.
strength is it's replicable. Not just somebody claiming something without justifying it can happen.
6 0 ReplyThis is totally false in practice.
2 5 ReplyHow is this incorrect? In which field? And how do you confirm
youthe validity of your methodology?3 1 ReplyReplication rarely happens and in many cases is outright impossible due to lack of shared code.
Things should be replicable, but that hasn't been the case for a while.
2 0 ReplySo then the failure of the scientific method is that people aren't following it. That's not so much a problem with the method.
4 0 ReplyIf a method can't practically be followed it's a sign of a bad method, or at least one that needs modification.
2 1 ReplyIt's not that it can't practically be followed, it is just that everyone running after H-index or whatever the hot thing is now has resulted in a drop in quality.
3 0 ReplyIt can easily be followed. Just not within capitalism.
Edit: But you're correct. And that's what we're seeing. A modified version.
1 0 Reply
the correct term you need is 'unachievable', not 'false'. [...] anyway, it depends on the field and type of study.
3 1 ReplyThat's just wordplay to make the problem seem like it's not as big of a problem.
1 2 ReplyCommon standards for language formally used in a specific field/profession/discipline aren't "wordplay" lol
3 0 ReplyThis isn't a professional forum. Playing the "it's a technical term" game is absolutely wordplay.
1 2 Reply