>>12776960>universitiesI mean journalists and humanities spewing crap.
this is what happened
1) STEM is fine, people graduating make money, research goes ahead
2)Enter the "publish or perish dogma"
3)Need to inflate the amount of publications, regardless of quality, you need more people
4)In an effort to shove people into STEM there's a two sided approach : call STEM what is not STEM and lower the quality of output
5)Proceed then to complain that research quality has declined, blame the scientific method instead of retarded policy making and quantity over quality.
The replication problem is non-existant because you should not even publish a study which is so poorly made that is not replicable, it is one of the fundamental points of hte scientific method.
How do you know if a study is a good study?
You check if the math holds, if there's data manipulation, if the statistical analysis is proper, if the sample size is large enough, etc.
It is a meticolous process.
Ofc if somebody has peer-reviewed a badly done study somebody then in the future will use that study as a basis for another study and will get wonky results.
