Take a photo of a barcode or cover
124 reviews for:
Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science
Stuart Ritchie
4.33 AVERAGE
124 reviews for:
Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science
Stuart Ritchie
4.33 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
informative
medium-paced
informative
medium-paced
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Very accessible critique of the current research and science-publishing system. It expresses an admiration for the scientific method whilst describing how it has been weakened by perverse incentives, producing an outcome- rather than process-orientated system. These outcomes are sometimes of low quality. In the best case scenario the research is repeated, causing animals to suffer and resources to be wasted. In the worst of cases, replications are discouraged by publishers, preserving incorrect notions and wasting human lives in the pursuit of speed.
My one gripe with the book is that it provides solutions to these problems that I have seen before and seen ignored for years as people who could make a difference by encouraging these policies end up embedded within the repetitive cycle. People doing considerate, well planned science are disadvantaged in the competitive job market that uses publication number not quality to rank applicants leading to a "natural selection of bad science".
Are there other feasible ways to encourage honestly in the research community? Or do all dispersed, self-organising, "self-regulating" systems encourage unscrupulous and selfish behaviour as they outcompete all others.
My one gripe with the book is that it provides solutions to these problems that I have seen before and seen ignored for years as people who could make a difference by encouraging these policies end up embedded within the repetitive cycle. People doing considerate, well planned science are disadvantaged in the competitive job market that uses publication number not quality to rank applicants leading to a "natural selection of bad science".
Are there other feasible ways to encourage honestly in the research community? Or do all dispersed, self-organising, "self-regulating" systems encourage unscrupulous and selfish behaviour as they outcompete all others.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
lighthearted
medium-paced
Must read for anyone in a science profession, or anyone who utilizes evidence in their work.
the audience of this book is clearly lay people with no idea what's going on in science and you know what, fine, this is probably decent for that audience, in the same way that middle school teaches you a lot things that aren't really correct but whatever, you have to start somewhere. this is a sloppy presentation of the mainline narrative that emerged from the replication crisis that is uncritical and myopic. the presentation of statistics is particularly painful. it is hard to take seriously an account that presents psychology's problems as if they are universal or new; that sees science as producing results that either correct or incorrect, rather than subject to uncertainty; that centers p-hacking and replicability as the fundamental problems; that offers no analysis that hasn't already been rehashed umpteen times; that fails to cover the vast, exciting and recent meta-scientific literature (from within psychology itself!); that... the list goes on. this book irritated the shit out of me
challenging
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced