HN user

nzseth

8 karma
Posts0
Comments2
View on HN
No posts found.

There seems to be two factors at play here that are creating almost nonsensical results.

1. The results, when filtered through the replicability guidelines rendered a clear verdict - 61 to 39 against.

2. The question of "how closely did the findings resemble the original study?" flips the findings. Moderately similar findings are the majority - 58 to 42 in the other direction.

How can you have a study that has "virtually identical" findings that doesn't replicate the original?