“You can think of this as psychology’s version of the climate-change debate,” says Schwarz. “The consensus of the vast majority of psychologists closely familiar with work in this area gets drowned out by claims of a few persistent priming skeptics.”

Still, Schwarz broadly supports Kahneman’s suggestion. “I will participate in such a daisy-chain if the field decides that it is something that should be implemented,” says Schwarz, but not if it is “merely directed at one single area of research”.

“I hope that this becomes part of a broader movement in psychology to be more self-critical, and to see if there are gaps in the way we do everyday science,” says Nosek. “I suspect those who are really committed to doing the best science possible will say that this or some alternative is a good idea.”

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on October 3, 2012.

2 Comments

1. 1. gnagy 04:20 PM 10/10/12

   I believe in science.
   
   This is chicanery not science.
   This is imagination run wild not science.
   This is absolute fraud.
   
   Talk about honesty in the "sciences."
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. denverjims 06:02 PM 10/10/12

   Seems that calls for this type of confirmation is healthy for science - psychology or climate studies or any. Kind of what real science is supposed to be about.
   
   Oh, and when did scientific concensus become = proof of hypothesis/theory? I'm sure Galileo & Kepler, for two, would concur that they are not. True, most physicists believe in quantum theory; but remember - that is not what proves it true.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this