Newmark's Door

Maybe academic researchers and those who love them shouldn't read this. It's as discouraging as discouraging can be about research.

I would guess that many papers fail to satisfy the third requirement listed by Professor Armstrong: "Full disclosure of methods, data and other relevant information". A small bit of good news is that, at least in economics, that seem to be (slowly) improving.

UPDATE: see Armstrong's  "Guidelines for Science: Evidence-based Checklists" for a more general argument. (Thanks to Mike for the comment.)

Sing along with Waylon: Mama, don't let your babies grow up to be social psychologists.

Related: "Another social psychology classic bites the dust – meta-analysis finds little evidence for the Macbeth effect".

But there's hope: "Online Bettors Can Sniff Out Weak Psychology Studies".

Not existing is one way to solve a mystery.

Doesn't California have enough problems?

"A window on science, mathematics, and philosophy communities on Twitter and YouTube".

"As these examples show, many of the irrational forces that conspire against us today—including xenophobia, a self-conscious obsession with beauty, and toxic celebrity culture—have rational roots in our evolutionary past."

LiDAR sounds cool.

My casual reading of the global warming literature is that a substantial part of the disagreement--even before assessing the accuracy of the climate models--is a hot dispute over what data to use. So I certainly agree with this piece that more and better data would be . . . better.

You know, two trillion galaxies is one heck of a lot of stuff.

Problems aside from the fact that if offends my intuition.