i hope that pubishing this thing in science actually gets people into to use insensive but, but my point earlier about philosophers was that i think that it should give you guys a sort of a kick in the ass. If you're goingo as a philosopher try to use empirical evidence in a way that's going to support an argument that you're making, you'd better damn well make sure that you've done the literature review and you are fairly confident that this is a real effect. So i guess that iam actually like this. I mean, this is just how the science has to proceed. And we need more incentive.
David and Tamler return after an end of summer hiatus to finally talk about the ethics of deception….eventually. But first they break down a recent article in the journal Science documenting an attempt to replicate 100 recent psychology experiments. What does it mean that just over 1/3 of the studies were successfully replicated? Is social psychology in crisis or is this just how science works? Will David somehow try to pin the blame on philosophers?
Plus--a brief and almost certainly regrettable foray into the Ashley Madison hack, the neuroscience of lying to your kids about Santa, and we announce a new way to contact us to help celebrate our 75th anniversary.
Links
Support Very Bad Wizards