Scott Alexander argues that psychology is indeed in crisis, contrary to a New York Times article's claim, due to issues like publication bias and low replication rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a New York Times article claiming psychology is not in crisis despite low replication rates. He argues that the article ignores publication bias, experimenter effects, and low base rates of true hypotheses. Scott contends that even if failed replications are due to different conditions, this still represents a crisis as it undermines the practical utility of psychological findings. He suggests that while we can't investigate every failed replication, studying some might reveal why replication issues keep occurring in psychology. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander humorously proposes a reality TV show called 'Replication Lab!' to address the crisis of replication in psychology by making the process more entertaining. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a humorous solution to the crisis of replication in psychology: a reality TV show called 'Replication Lab!'. The show would attempt to replicate famous experiments each week, turning the unglamorous task of replication into entertaining television. The post describes a hypothetical episode, complete with dramatic tension, human interest stories, and the potential for career-ruining failures to replicate. The satirical proposal aims to make replication more appealing and address the serious issue of unreliable research in a lighthearted way. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the claim that '90% of medical research is false', arguing it's an exaggeration while acknowledging real issues in the field. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the popular claim that '90% of medical research is false', which is often attributed to John Ioannidis. He argues that this statement, while pointing to important issues, creates more panic than warranted. Scott analyzes Ioannidis' work, showing that the 90% figure is likely misinterpreted from various sources. He explains that the accuracy of medical research varies greatly depending on the type of study, with large randomized trials and meta-analyses being much more reliable. Scott also discusses how multiple studies on the same topic can greatly increase confidence in results, and how doctors' beliefs are typically based on substantial evidence rather than single studies. He concludes by acknowledging the problems in medical research while cautioning against overly cynical interpretations. Shorter summary