Either way, I think you are being quite uncharitable to Mitchell.
I disagree. Let’s look at this section again:
Whether they mean to or not, authors and editors of failed replications are publicly impugning the scientific integrity of their colleagues. Targets of failed replications are justifiably upset, particularly given the inadequate basis for replicators’ extraordinary claims.
Contrast this to:
“This been difficult for me personally because it’s an area that’s important for my research,” he says. “But I choose the red pill. That’s what doing science is.”
The first view seems to have the implied assumption that false positives don’t happen to good researchers, whereas the second view has the implied assumption that theories and people are separate, and people should follow the facts, rather than the other way around.
But perhaps it is the case that, in social psychology, the majority of false positives are not innocent, and thus when a researchers results do not replicate it is a sign that they’re dishonest rather than that they’re unlucky. In such a case, he is declaring that researchers should not try to expose dishonesty, which should bring down opprobrium from all decent people.
The goal is to set up the experiments to make it solely about the results and not about colleagues. If ‘scientific integrity’ means sloppy, porous experimental setup, then impugning this is not a bad thing. Ideally the experimental design and execution should transcend the question of the researchers’ motives.
I disagree. Let’s look at this section again:
Contrast this to:
From here, linked before on LW here.
The first view seems to have the implied assumption that false positives don’t happen to good researchers, whereas the second view has the implied assumption that theories and people are separate, and people should follow the facts, rather than the other way around.
But perhaps it is the case that, in social psychology, the majority of false positives are not innocent, and thus when a researchers results do not replicate it is a sign that they’re dishonest rather than that they’re unlucky. In such a case, he is declaring that researchers should not try to expose dishonesty, which should bring down opprobrium from all decent people.
The goal is to set up the experiments to make it solely about the results and not about colleagues. If ‘scientific integrity’ means sloppy, porous experimental setup, then impugning this is not a bad thing. Ideally the experimental design and execution should transcend the question of the researchers’ motives.