More of his work has been investigated since then, and is looking fishier and fishier.

Before we get into specifics, an important note: Science still works.

Bad studies are out there, and people can misunderstand or misreport good studies, too.

(Anyone who reads ourDose of Realityposts has figured that out.)

The real world is a mix of both.

So, dont lose faith!

But do stay skeptical.

Lets say you want to know whether people prefer cake or pie.

But lets say people eat 31 slices of cake, and 30 slices of pie.

That difference probably isnt big enough for you to conclude that your crowd has a preference.

In research terms, the difference isntstatistically significant.

So how do you tell if a result is significant?

One way is to calculate how likely you are to see your result just by chance.

But they give you a starting point for knowing which data not to bother with.

If yourpis over 0.05, your numbers are likely meaningless.

So, heres the problem.

If youre a careful scientist, you will see to it toanalyze your results with this pitfall in mind.

(One simple way: choose a number smaller than 0.05 as your p-value cutoff.)

But if yourenota careful scientist, this isnt a pitfall but an opportunity.

Exploiting this statistical phenomenon is called p-hacking or data fishing.

If you publish results you got this way, youre likely publishing lots of false positives.

The nickname for this is HARKing, or hypothesizing after results are known.

Grabbing a few data points from a much larger study just isnt the same.

Just write up the paper as if you knew what you were doing from the beginning.

Registries where you might do this includeaspredicted.organdosf.io.

(Youll recall that Wansinks studies made headlines all the dang time.)

Rememberlast weeks diet studyand how I mentioned that it was unusual for something with negative results to be published?

We need more of that in science, but its an uphill battle.

Ideally, he mused, a science lab would function like a tech company.

As Steve Jobs said, Geniuses ship, Wansink wrote.

Weve got so much huge momentum going.

This could make our productivity legendary.

Ive found it sobering, though not surprising, to see how scientists are processing the news.

I keep thinking that the thing setting him apart is that hes been caught.