Though there are certainly known cases of scientists making their results conform to theoretical expectations more closely than their experiments justify (e.g., by the choice of relative outliers that are chosen to be ignored as anomalous), there seems to be one difference compared to psychology. In physical science any important experimental claim requires independent replication before being accepted by peers. My impression is that this is frequently not the case in psychology, with results of studies sometimes being widely cited regardless of whether they have been replicated.
Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org ---------------------------------------------------- From: "Beth Benoit" <[email protected]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:32:09 PM Subject: [tips] Stapel's faking of social psychology data This story has been going on for a couple of days. Embarrassing: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21118-psychologist-admits-faking-data-in-dozens-of-studies.html Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13884 or send a blank email to leave-13884-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
