/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15634029
You are a retard though, and you are incapable of arguing with your opponents in good faith, and it's also pretty clearly that you're a woke neoliberal, but you have repeatedly used the words "faggot" and "schizo" in this thread. You're not acting in good faith, and you can't even adhere to the norms and moral standards of your own ideology.

Anyway, you are a total retard if you think the only reason people care about the replication crisis is because they're "sour grapes" who are just upset because Stanford "rejected them", as you claimed in this post >>15614909. Many reasonable people are interested in the replication crisis, and it has actually become a very active area of research in academia (in fact, I'm doing a PhD on the topic), and is in fact one of the most active fields today in terms of both scholarly citation count and mainstream public exposure. Pdf related, for example, is a very well known and highly cited journal article discussing the replication crisis. It appear in one of the PLoS journals.

If you categorically reject the significance of the replication crisis and you think it's just a bunch of made up non-sense being pushed by the far-right in order to disparage the academic establishment then you yourself are just political and ideologically motivated as the people you criticize (arguably even more so), and you are actually objectively wrong, since the replication crisis is, as I have already pointed out, an active area of mainstream scholarly research. In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that it is even unethical for a working scientist or scholar to NOT be concerned about the replication crisis and other forms of systemic bias in their fields. If you're working in an academic field, then you have an ethical obligation to be mindful of the ways in which bias could be impacting your work.