Hacker News Reader

That's an interesting theoretical question.

Unfortunately the reality is that the more interesting and quotable the result is, the less likely it is to replicate. So replication problems most strongly hit things that seem like they should have the greatest implications.

Kind of a "worst of all worlds" scenario.

View on HN

And critically, scientific publications are incentivized likewise to publish the most outlandish claims they can possibly get away with. That same incentive affects individual scientists, who disproportionately submit the most outlandish claims they can possibly get away with. The boring stuff -- true or not -- is not worth the hassle of putting into a publishable article.

And then the most outlandish of these are picked up by popular science writers. Who proceed to mangle it beyond recognition, and add a random spin. This then goes to the general public.

Some believe the resulting garbage. And wind up with weird ideas.

Others use that garbage to justify throwing out everything that scientists say. And then double down on random conspiracy theories, denialism, and pseudoscience.

I wish there was a solution to this. But everyone is actually following their incentives here. :-(

The scientists push it on the pop writers, to created a Personal Brand and an industrial complex around their pet theory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com