Yes, it is true that there are massive problems in failure to replicate in psychology, not to mention bad statistics etc. However, a single experiment is still evidence in favour.
Whether the reporter should be fired is not only about the quality of the experiment.
Thing is, Prof. Carroll is not a neuroscientist. So what gives her the right to tell neuroscientists that they are wrong about neuroscience?
Whether the article clearly communicates the scientific knowledge that exists. Most mainstream media article about science don’t.
Yes, obviously she has the legal right to argue about things she has no understanding of, and equally obviously I was not talking about legal rights.
If the journalist quotes her, that likely means he called her on the phone and ask her for her opinion.
If you think he should have asked somebody different then the journalist is at fault.
Whether the reporter should be fired is not only about the quality of the experiment.
The journalist in this case.
What criteria would you advocate then?
Yes, obviously she has the legal right to argue about things she has no understanding of, and equally obviously I was not talking about legal rights.
Whether the article clearly communicates the scientific knowledge that exists. Most mainstream media article about science don’t.
If the journalist quotes her, that likely means he called her on the phone and ask her for her opinion. If you think he should have asked somebody different then the journalist is at fault.