How reliable is science? Status quo (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 19, 2012, 16:08 (4569 days ago) @ David Turell

Look at this condemnation of university status quo. Smells like an effect of peer review
> 
> http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/09/opinion-academia-suppresses-creativity/-And this article from Nature: replications not published. As a result negative results stay hidden. Something in rotten in science to paraphrase the Bard:-http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634-"Positive results in psychology can behave like rumours: easy to release but hard to dispel. They dominate most journals, which strive to present new, exciting research. Meanwhile, attempts to replicate those studies, especially when the findings are negative, go unpublished, languishing in personal file drawers or circulating in conversations around the water cooler. "There are some experiments that everyone knows don't replicate, but this knowledge doesn't get into the literature," says Wagenmakers. The publication barrier can be chilling, he adds. "I've seen students spending their entire PhD period trying to replicate a phenomenon, failing, and quitting academia because they had nothing to show for their time."--"These problems occur throughout the sciences, but psychology has a number of deeply entrenched cultural norms that exacerbate them"