Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
shakedown.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A community for live music fans with roots in the jam scene. Shakedown Social is run by a team of volunteers (led by @clifff and @sethadam1) and funded by donations.

Administered by:

Server stats:

245
active users

shakedown.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#psychmethods

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public
Mark Rubin

New paper provides a history of “voodoo science,” which discusses the controversy surrounding Vul et al.’s (2009) controversial article “Puzzlingly High Correlations in FMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition.”

Five quotes follow: 🧵👉

🔓 doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010015

#MetaScience
#Neuroscience
#Neuroimaging
#MetaResearch
#PsychMethods
#ReplicationCrisis
#PhilosophyOfScience
#PhilSci
#Fmri
#VoodooCorrelations
#UseNovelty
#MultipleTesting

'Voodoo” Science in Neuroimaging: How a Controversy Transformed into a Crisis Abstract: Since the 1990s, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques have continued to advance, which has led researchers and non specialists alike to regard this technique as infallible. However, at the end of 2008, a scientific controversy and the related media coverage called functional neuroimaging practices into question and cast doubt on the capacity of fMRI studies to produce reliable results. The purpose of this article is to retrace the history of this contemporary controversy and its treatment in the media. Then, the study stands at the intersection of the history of science, the epistemology of statistics, and the epistemology of science. Arguments involving actors (researchers, the media) and the chronology of events are presented. Finally, the article reveals that three groups fought through different arguments (false positives, statistical power, sample size, etc.), reaffirming the current scientific norms that separate the true from the false. Replication, forming this boundary, takes the place of the most persuasive argument. This is how the voodoo controversy joined the replication crisis.
ExploreLive feeds
About