Read on Twitter
This is a great thread. But there is an alternative conclusion: Reproducibility crises themselves are overblown and missing the point.
https://twitter.com/dandekadt/status/1667831071541526528
There has never been a time in science when most published findings were true. And yet, many disciplines managed to have a profound impact nonetheless, why?
My take (which is probably wrong but I want to know why) is most of the retrospectively big successes in science were coupled to big successes in engineering.
In order to find out "what's true," you have to find out "what works."
Maybe a dark example here: which is better evidence of the theory of relativity? The Michelson–Morley experiment or the nuclear bomb?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
