We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

In 2023, Protzco et al. published a scientific study showing that scientific rigor can lead to replicable results.

If that doesn’t mean anything to you, think back to middle-school science. We all were taught the “scientific method,” where you see something in nature that gives you an idea (hypothesis), then you come up with a plan (method) to test that idea, and then you see whether your idea was right or not and how you might apply it to advance science (make money).

In the peer-reviewed publication Nature, Protzco claimed to have proven that following said scientific method actually make for better science.

Yes, the scientists have finally proven that science must be sciencey in order to be the most scientific. What would we do without them?

The study said that adhering strictly to the scientific method was a massive boost for researchers. It claimed,

preregistering, transparency, and large samples boost psychology studies’ replication rate to nearly 90%.

Replication is something that at the beginning of the scientific age was required for publishing, but the practice has been largely replaced by peer review in the publish-or-die atmosphere of modern academia.

[Translation: You don’t have to demonstrate that you can repeat your results multiple times to prove your ideas are true, you just need to have a blue-haired friend at a journal to let you say that castrating kids is a good idea, actually]

If you needed further proof that peer review is a complete joke, consider that the illustrious peer-reviewed Nature has now retracted the study on scientific rigor for lack of scientific rigor.

Joseph Bak-Coleman of the University of Konstanz and Berna Devezer of the University of Idaho published a critique of the article, which drew the scrutiny of the scientific community.

Causal claims about scientific rigor require rigorous causal evidence.

And that critique led to the authors of the study coming clean about their own lack of scientific rigor.

We are embarrassed by our elementary errors with reporting on the preregistration, and agree that they need to be addressed.

The writers are undaunted about their results though and plan on revising their article to address the accusations.

We will revise the paper to address the inaccuracies and consider other critiques about the substance of our claims during revision.

You have to love how rich the irony is, and how desperate the need for scientific reform is.

These are the sorts of unprovable, unrepeatable science publications that have opened the door for transgender surgeries being performed on children.

It’s a simple solution:

  • Scrap peer review and require at least three attempted peer replications for publication.

  • Publish the things that don’t work, so we don’t keep barking up the wrong trees.

  • And count it all as a publication for university requirements.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇


Keep up with our latest videos — Subscribe to our YouTube channel!