Not every disputed claim needs more data to be refuted. If a paper doesn’t measure its stated construct or relies on base rates too small to support inference, it is logically invalid and should be corrected or retracted without demanding new datasets.
— This would speed up error correction in politicized fields by empowering journals and media to act on clear logical defects rather than waiting for years of replications.
2025.10.07
76% relevant
The article argues the gas‑stove PAF paper—and the underlying meta‑analysis it relies on—are logically invalid for policy because they treat prevalence ratios as odds ratios and apply PAF formulas without causal identification, showing how methodological misfits can be disqualifying without more data.
Scott
2025.09.26
85% relevant
Aaronson argues the HSBC/IBM result is logically invalid as evidence of quantum advantage because the benefit disappears in a noiseless simulation; he highlights selection bias and 'cargo‑cult' design, matching the principle that some claims fail on logic before new data are needed.
José Duarte
2025.08.28
100% relevant
Napier & Jost labeled simple inequality‑attitude items as 'rationalization,' and Lewandowsky et al. linked moon‑landing hoaxism to climate denial with only 10 endorsers out of 1,145.