I mean, there’s “controversy” in the sense that the old guard hasn’t all died yet. (This is in reference to the saying: “science progresses one funeral at a time”, i.e. people tend to cling to their old paradigms until they die, long after it has become obvious to everyone coming into the field that the old paradigm is wrong.) I think there’s basically-zero “controversy” in the sense that e.g. a prediction market would put approximately-100% of its weight on the replication crisis being a real thing, and most of that research indeed not replicating.
Problem is, if we only allow examples where there’s no longer any holdouts at all, then we won’t find any examples from the past 40-50 years because the relevant people haven’t died yet.
Thanks. That fits the first three criteria well, but there is still controversy about many of the results, so maybe not the fourth one yet.
I mean, there’s “controversy” in the sense that the old guard hasn’t all died yet. (This is in reference to the saying: “science progresses one funeral at a time”, i.e. people tend to cling to their old paradigms until they die, long after it has become obvious to everyone coming into the field that the old paradigm is wrong.) I think there’s basically-zero “controversy” in the sense that e.g. a prediction market would put approximately-100% of its weight on the replication crisis being a real thing, and most of that research indeed not replicating.
Problem is, if we only allow examples where there’s no longer any holdouts at all, then we won’t find any examples from the past 40-50 years because the relevant people haven’t died yet.