Good idea! He might explain the difference between direct replication and systematic replication, which is crucial to the article but unmentioned.
On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:54 AM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 08:02:05 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: >> Hi >> >> Piece in NY Times by psychologist defending the discipline. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/opinion/psychology-is-not-in-crisis.html?emc=edit_th_20150901&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=26933398&_r=0 >> >> Judging by comments, readers aren't buying the argument. > > Maybe Scott Lilienfeld should write an Op-Ed piece because > of his background on reviewing psychology as a science vs > being a pseudoscience. He hasn't commented on the > reproducibility project but one imagines that he may have > some useful insights as well as explanations that go beyond > "this is just an example of the self-correcting nature of science". > > -Mike Palij > New York University Paul Brandon 10 Crown Hill Ln Mankato, MN 56001 507-387-4945 [email protected] --- 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=46610 or send a blank email to leave-46610-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
