Psychology is in a state of flux. Ever since the prominent Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel admitted in 2011 to fabricating and manipulating the data in his work, the field’s research methods have been in the spotlight. The debate has focused on whether replication is a way to confirm accuracy. In theory, if a study was done properly, a research group should be able to reliably repeat it and get the same results. This view has long been a cornerstone of the scientific method. But is it realistic? If the answer is no, what does that mean for the field…
Read the rest of this article at PrimeMind.
Follow Neurobonkers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, RSS, or join the mailing list.
Africa America Bad Science BCI Brain Computer Interfacing breaking news Cannabis Censorship Cocaine Copyright Counterfeit Drugs Daily Fail DailyFail daily mail Daily Mail Demolition Squad Drugs EEG Emotiv Fake Drugs FMRI Health Hoax Independent Misinformation Music Neuroscience Open Science Procrastination Psychology Rat Brain Robot Review Satire Science sex Skepticism Statistics Student Loans Crisis Susan Greenfield Synaesthesia Technology The confederacy of dunces Video walking War on Drugs Wikileaks
Cookie ComplianceThis site contains cookies. If you have ever used the internet before then you probably knew that already and ate them long before you arrived here. If you are allergic to cookies please leave now.