oLT15: Science reform: Do we need a plan B?
There is a reliable tendency for scientists to adopt new discoveries. As we know ten years after the founding of SIPS, this doesn't apply to methods. New methods may mean publishing less, or erasing one's legacy. Worse, once new methods are avoided, the barrier to adoption grows.
I will argue that science largely didn't change and it was a matter of self-preservation. It will, therefore, not change in the future. P-hacking, base rates, and publication bias weren't even new.
We don't know the solution, but reform needs to be scientific and update these outdated assumptions: that researchers will change once they know, and will act in good faith. Further, we should test an untested assumption, that an expert with bias is better than a non-expert without it. The results may suggest a "Red team," or at least "jury system," of science.
