Skip to content

What to do with research we now realize is flawed.

April 11, 2012

About a month ago, a discussion started in my twitterfeed about what to do with papers that, in hindsight, turns out to be terribly flawed, but are still quite influential.  It started with Dorothy Bishop Critizising the methods of a highly influential neuroimaging paper on her blog, and with Russ Poldrak (who was one of the co-authors) agreeing with her!

Daniel Bor blogged the issue, and there is a great, long discussion following, including Dorothy Bishop and Neurosceptik and others.  Great Read.

And, I want give a Hat Tip to Soulful Sepulcher, who linked it in the twitterstream.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: