Does science self-correct?
Matt Clancy, New Ideas Under the Sun
Suggested by Sam Dumitriu, research director of The Entrepreneurs Network
There is a replication crisis in the social sciences. Many findings in social science simply can’t be reproduced by other researchers. Scientist Brian Nosek got 270 of his peers to attempt 100 psychological studies published in top journals. While 97% of the original studies produced statistically significant results, just 36% of the replications did. This is a major challenge to many lines of enquiry in social science.
But how do scientists respond when entire fields are called into question? Innovation economist Matt Clancy tries to answer this question by looking at what happens when papers are retracted. The findings are broadly heartening: “scientists are pretty responsive to news that research is flawed. They rapidly stop citing retracted work and they look more skeptically at work by the same people, especially when they have less reason to trust the author (either because they didn’t self-report or they have a less prestigious track record). They even exercise more caution in citing work in similar fields.”
I wonder if the real issue is not how scientists retract, but whether news of a retraction or failure to replicate makes it to the media. Take Paul Dolan’s now retracted claim that married women are, on average, “f***ing miserable” based on a misreading of the data. Prominent magazines were still publishing op-eds uncritically citing his claim a week after it had been retracted.
Explain your extremists
Bryan Caplan, Econlib
Suggested by Philip Salter, founder of The Entrepreneurs Network
If you held the opinions of an average person in any village, town, city or country at any point in history, you would have happily thought things that seem to us morally indefensible. Just consider slavery, segregation and human sacrifice.
And yet, it would be surprising if we just happened to be born at the historical apex of moral enlightenment. Surely there are things that we do today that will be looked upon by future generations as abhorrent. Some people do question the status quo. Historically, these people were considered extremists.
In a recent post, Bryan Caplan asks readers to account for current extremists. Perhaps, for example, their proposals are politically impossible, unstable or costly. (And, if you’re the extremist, maybe you’re not being pragmatic.) Either way, what makes you think you’ve discovered your side’s Golden Mean?
Caplan himself has plenty of extreme views; including that America – or any country for that matter – should have completely open borders.
Land banking is a myth
Barney Stringer, Barney's Blog
Suggested by Philip Salter, founder of The Entrepreneurs Network
Land banking is the practice of buying undeveloped land purely as an investment, with no plans for its development. For years, commentators from across the political spectrum have blamed the practice for reducing supply and pushing up house prices.
It was a claim without evidence, which has been proven false by Barney Stringer and his team. Looking at 604 sites across London with planning permission for 175,963 homes, they uncovered why sites weren’t progressing.
Above all, they found that the complexity of planning and development is delaying delivery of housing. Reserved matters (additional planning details that are required), delays to infrastructure like Crossrail, time taken to get a Compulsory Purchase Order, and waiting for current businesses to vacate are all slowing down developers.
Given that councils are expected to find an additional 260,000 homes in the next five years and this study only identified current planning permissions for 176,000 homes, one thing isn’t a myth: we aren’t building enough to keep up with demand.
Check out the work of London YIMBY if you’re interested in finding out more about this issue.
Don’t miss another Big Idea – sign up here.