What you find depends on what you’re looking for.
Some people argue the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you just need to keep looking. But there are occasions where finding no evidence is all you can do.
Some studies don’t hold up to added scrutiny.
PORTRAIT IMAGES ASIA BY NONWARIT/shutterstock.com
Rising evidence shows that many psychology studies don't stand up to added scrutiny. The problem has many scientists worried – but it could also encourage them to up their game.
Some scientists think it’s time to hang up statistical significance.
Two prestigious journals have suggested abandoning the traditional test of the strength of a study's results. But a statistician worries that this would make science worse.
Law and science seek proof in similar ways, but at very different speeds.
What is proof? In both law and science, it's basically a consensus of experts – but they work at very different speeds. That means juries may reach verdicts on an issue before the science is settled.
Doubting Thomas needed the proof, just like a scientist, and now is a cautionary Biblical example.
An evolutionary biologist makes the case that there's no reconciling science and religion. In the search for truth, one tests hypotheses while the other relies on faith.
Scientists are facing a reproducibility crisis.
Y Photo Studio/shutterstock.com
Science is in a reproducibility crisis. This is driven in part by invalid statistical analyses that happen long after the data are collected – the opposite of how things are traditionally done.
A new statistical test lets scientists figure out if two groups are similar to one another.
A new statistical test lets researchers search for similarities between groups. Could this help keep new important findings out of the file drawer?
Most people never have the chance to see how animals live in laboratories.
Since 2012, more than 120 of Britain’s universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical companies have signed a public pledge committing them to greater openness in their animal research programs.
Scientific pursuits need to be coupled with a humanist tradition — to highlight not just how psychedelics work, but why that matters.
Once associated with mind-control experiments and counter-cultural defiance, psychedelics now show great promise for mental health treatments and may prompt a re-evaluation of the scientific method.
Machine learning is changing the world in ways that we are just beginning to appreciate. But could it change the way we do science and the reasons why we do science?
Academic journals rely on peer review to support editors in making decisions about what to publish.
There's peer review – and then there's peer review. With more knowledge you can dive in a little deeper and make a call about how reliable a science paper really is.
Peer review takes time – around seven to eight hours per paper if done properly.
Key areas of focus for tweaking peer review include making journal editors more directive in the process, rewarding reviewers, and improving accountability of editors, reviewers and authors.
From human 'gills' to reproducing rock, evidence hasn't always pointed scientists in the right direction.
Sea ice off of East Antarctica’s Princess Astrid Coast.
Geospatial data offers a powerful new way to see the world. But these high-tech images can be misleading or incomplete.
Alone in the crowd, but not lonely.
Recent news reports suggest that the US is experiencing a loneliness epidemic. But the research is a bit more complicated.
It’s impossible to separate science from wonder.
Let's get emotional about science. Not just to celebrate it, but because that's how to do it properly.
It may take time for a tiny step forward to show its worth.
Scientists are rewarded with funding and publications when they come up with innovative findings. But in the midst of a 'reproducibility crisis,' being new isn't the only thing to value about research.
Many scientific studies aren’t holding up in further tests.
A and N photography/Shutterstock.com
Scientists have a big problem: Many psychological studies don't hold up to scrutiny. Is it time to redefine statistical significance?
Advocating for facts and evidence at the March for Science in California earlier this year.
Scientists typically stay out of public policy debates, but an academic makes the case that they need to push back against politicians who distort research.
Opening up data and materials helps with research transparency.
REDPIXEL.PL via Shutterstock.com
Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.