Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-jkvpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T11:57:15.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

You are not your data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Gordon Pennycook
Gordon Pennycook*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8205. gordon.pennycook@yale.edugordonpennycook.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientists should, above all else, value the truth. To do this effectively, scientists should separate their identities from the data they produce. It will be easier to make replications mainstream if scientists are rewarded based on their stance toward the truth – such as when a scientist reacts positively to a failure to replicate – as opposed to a particular finding.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bohannon, J. (2014) Replication effort provokes praise – and ‘bullying’ charges. Science 344:788–89.Google Scholar
Ebersole, C. R., Axt, J. R. & Nosek, B. A. (2016b) Scientists’ reputations are based on getting it right, not being right. PLoS Biology 14(5):e1002460. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460.Google Scholar
Fetterman, A. K. & Sassenberg, K. (2015) The reputational consequences of failed replications and wrongness admission among scientists. PLoS One 10(12):e0143723. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143723.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. (2005) On bullshit. Princeton University Press. Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=5452992.Google Scholar
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A. & Hoyle, R. H. (2017) Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6):793–813. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. & Motyl, M. (2012) Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6):615–31. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making 10(6):549–63.Google Scholar
Ståhl, T., Zaal, M. P. & Skitka, L. J. (2016) Moralized rationality: Relying on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of belief can be seen as a moral issue. PLoS One 11(11):e0166332. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166332.Google Scholar