What to do with research we now realize is flawed.
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.