Why do I go into all this detail? Is it simply mudslinging? Fiske attacks science reformers, so science reformers slam Fiske? No, that’s not the point. The issue is not Fiske’s data processing errors or her poor judgment as journal editor; rather, what’s relevant here is that she’s working within a dead paradigm. A paradigm that should’ve been dead back in the 1960s when Meehl was writing on all this, but which in the wake of Simonsohn, Button et al., Nosek et al., is certainly dead today. It’s the paradigm of the open-ended theory, of publication in top journals and promotion in the popular and business press, based on “p less than .05” results obtained using abundant researcher degrees of freedom. It’s the paradigm of the theory that in the words of sociologist Jeremy Freese, is “more vampirical than empirical—unable to be killed by mere data.” It’s the paradigm followed by Roy Baumeister and John Bargh , two prominent social psychologists who were on the wrong end of some replication failures and just can’t handle it.
Top ten lists should be relegated to the David Letterman show. “These are the best ten thingies of all time.” If they really are, then, without new evidence to change opinion, why does the list change?nnAnswer: Because it gets a page views. Even, or maybe especially, by people like me who think they are , to the person asking why comedies never make the top lists; comedies make you smile and feel good, critics seem to believe art should wake the hidden sorrow you have buried deep inside. Yeah, we REALLY need to get more in touch with that. Too much joy in the world otherwise.