Thread by @kaitlynmwerner

So, basically, it's Zimbardo's words against the participants' and, despite there being evidence against Z's recounts, he is SO SURE that he is right. Because, you know, it's not like he has anything riding on this experiment or whatever 🙄 This guy is ridiculous and a total sham

https://twitter.com/B_resnick/status/1012303762713710593

In fact, Z goes on to say the Ps weren't acting (despite one explicitly saying he did) because what would they get from that? I wish the reporter would have asked him the same question: well, you have a lot of motive here, so what could YOU possibly get (or lose) from all this?

Reporter: Do you think the experiment itself has a definitive scientific value? If so, what is it?

Zimbardo: It depends what you mean by scientific value.

Any reasonable science person: So, no.

OK, I'm done.

OK, I lied, I'm not done.

The sentence goes on to say: "It depends what you mean by scientific value...it doesn’t have to be scientifically valid. It means it’s a conclusion drawn from this powerful, unique demonstration."

THIS GUYS IS A HIGHLY ESTEEMED PROF AT STANFORD? GTFOH.

As a hopeful (perhaps disillusioned) candidate in pursuing a professorship, I really value the idea of tenure. But shit like this makes me think it might not be worth it. You shouldn't be able to keep your job if you don't even understand its basic principles.

"I think you’re insisting on a traditional view of what is scientific, what is a scientific experiment, what is a scientifically validated conclusion."

So here it is, guys, the birth of the alternative science movement.

And here is a perfect example of how people can use open science to be manipulative:

"I was transparent, so how dare you question anything I've done! Anything negative you say is a personal attack!"

"I would love for there to be better, more scientific evaluation of this conclusion, rather than a bunch of bloggers saying, “We’re gonna shoot it down.”

There are multiple failed replications, kbye.