Abstract

Abstract: Current attempts at methodological reform in sciences come in response to an overall lack of rigor in methodological and scientific practices in experimental sciences. However, some of these reform attempts suffer from the same mistakes and over-generalizations they purport to address. Considering the costs of allowing false claims to become canonized, we argue for formal rigor and statistical nuance in methodological reform. By way of example, we present a formal analysis of three popular claims in the metascientific literature: (a) that reproducibility is the cornerstone of science; (b) that data must not be used twice in any analysis; and© that exploratory projects are characterized by poor statistical practice. We show how our formal approach can inform and shape debates about such methodological claims.

Bio: Berna Devezer is an Associate Professor at the Department of Business and Affiliate Faculty at the Department of Mathematics and Statistical Science at the University of Idaho. She received her M.S. in Statistics and PhD in Marketing from Washington State University. Her current research focus is on advancing a theoretical understanding of metascientific phenomena such as scientific progress, reproducibility, and open science.