Итоги голосования для комментария:
Dmitry Gerasimov Чтобы было ещё смешнее, я процитирую кусочек из заключения к самой статье, на кривой журналистский пересказ которой дана ссылка:
After this intensive effort to reproduce a sample of published psychological findings, how many of the effects have we established are true? Zero. And how many of the effects have we established are false? Zero. Is this a limitation of the project design? No. It is the reality of doing science, even if it is not appreciated in daily practice. Humans desire certainty, and science infrequently provides it. As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, a single study almost never provides definitive resolution for or against an effect and its explanation. The original studies examined here offered tentative evidence; the replications we conducted offered
additional, confirmatory evidence. In some cases, the replications increase confidence in the reliability of the original results; in other cases, the replications suggest that more investigation is needed to establish the validity of the original findings. Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims.
The present results suggest that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology. Any
temptation to interpret these results as a defeat for psychology, or science more generally, must
contend with the fact that this project demonstrates science behaving as it should.
+ -