Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HydrogenSun t1_ixql3ah wrote

Reply to comment by DaveinOakland in Eye-tracking study suggests that negative comments on social media are more attention-grabbing than positive comments by mossadnik

To quantify and deepen our understanding. All science starts from observations.

25

Strangelet1 t1_ixqmx64 wrote

That is lovely and good, but we shouldn’t forget there is a ton of worthless research out there, driven by the promotion and graduation schemes with which we incentivize scientific research. There is only so much grant money available.

−5

RLDSXD t1_ixqnqlv wrote

The only worthless research is poor quality or redundant research. As long as the data is reliable and new, it’s valuable.

11

Muscadine76 t1_ixqvc3z wrote

Even “redundant” research can at least sometimes have value. Certainly at some point there are diminishing returns, but currently we undervalue reproducing findings.

8

RLDSXD t1_ixrt3b0 wrote

It’s hard to be accurate within an amount of text that most people will find digestible, at least for me. Replicating positive results is a good thing and I wouldn’t consider that redundant. But if it’s something like “We’ve poured chicken broth on dryer lint and it didn’t produce gold”, we only need a couple studies (again, as long as the data and methods used were solid) before more start becoming redundant.

If we do something and nothing happens, it’s good to try a couple times and be sure that technique doesn’t do anything. More than that is redundant. If we try something and it does work, then I’ll welcome far more trials confirming it does work before I start tossing around the word “redundant”, especially if those trials are by other people in other places.

Semantics get annoying, as well. But I see what you’re saying.

2

South_Data2898 t1_ixr9gw0 wrote

Seriously, of that the fields that needed to learn that lesson the one that needs it the most is Psychology.

1