piclist 2008\07\22\205437a >
Thread: :: Why most published research findings are false.
www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+most+published
flavicon
face BY : Cedric Chang email (remove spam text)



> ___________
>
> I did / do like your list of checks and balances.
>
> A shame they are not (or, alas, cannot) be applied in a few
> other 'sciences' and areas of endeavour that I won't even
> name here for risk of starting a conflagration.
>
>
>         Russell



Maybe we could mosey on over to the [OT] tag and discuss 'science  
areas' that are truly bogus, such as psychology and psychiatric  
medicine.
cc




<5BE8670B-0A04-4E56-82C3-BA7A33C62905@nope9.com> 7bit

In reply to: <006601c8eb1f$94ddb350$e701a8c0@y2k>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+most+published
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) :: Why most published research findings are false.

month overview.

new search...