Replication and the Establishment of Scientific Truth

Abstract

The idea of replication is based on the premise that there are empirical regularities or universal laws to be replicated and verified, and the scientific method is adequate for doing it. Scientific truth, however, is not absolute but relative to time, context, and the method used. Time and context are inextricably intertwined in that time (e.g., Christmas Day vs. New Year's Day) creates different contexts for behaviors and contexts create different experiences of time, rendering psychological phenomena inherently variable. This means that internal and external conditions fluctuate and are different in a replication study vs. the original. Thus, a replication experiment is just another empirical investigation in an ongoing effort to establish scientific truth. Neither the original nor a replication is the final arbiter of whether or not something exists. Discovered patterns need not be permanent laws of human behavior proven by the pinpoint statistical verification through replication. To move forward, phenomenon replications are needed to investigate phenomena in different ways, forms, contexts, and times. Such investigations look at phenomena not just in terms the magnitude of their effects but also by their frequency, duration, and intensity in labs and real life. They will also shed light on the extent to which lab manipulations may make many phenomena subjectively conscious events and effects (e.g., causal attributions) when they are nonconsciously experienced in real life, or vice versa. As scientific knowledge in physics is temporary and incomplete, should it be any surprise that science can only provide "temporary winners" for psychological knowledge of human behavior?

Toward a theory of conscious–nonconscious processing and getting hard (and easy) things done in everyday life.

“…Although far from being complete, it addresses an important area of everyday living and invites researchers to contribute to theory testing rather than establishment of the statistical significance (Grahek et al, 2021). The temporary, propositional, and provisional nature of scientific knowledge calls for continual theory development and model expansion (Iso-Ahola, 2017b, 2020).…”

Dimensionality of the Chinese CES-D: Is It Stable across Gender, Time, and Samples?

“…Replication studies are necessary for scientific research because they can set up the basis for generalization, identify potential biases in the original research, confirm or challenge prior findings, and connect existing and new knowledge [22]. In the area of assessment, Iso-Ahola [23] highlighted the importance of replications on factorial invariance because the acceptance of "scientific truth" is significantly shaped by measurements. However, despite the importance of replication, there are very few replication studies, particularly in social sciences [24].…”

Replication and Reproducibility in Psychological, Medical and other Sciences

“…This variable nature of the human mind poses difficult challenges for the scientific method and insurmountable problems for exact replications of psychological phenomena. However, it does not mean that psychological phenomena do not exist, only that the establishment of their boundary conditions is necessary, hard and time-consuming (5) Unfortunately, the idea of replication has been misinterpreted in psychological science to mean that phenomena either exist or they do not. This yes-no interpretation has been adopted from the physics model of replication, where the accepted existence of various phenomena (e.g., gravity waves as predicted by Einstein's theory) critically depends on successful precise replications.…”

“…All of this means that replication failures are inevitable and direct replications nothing but exercises in futility. The end result is that logically and theoretically well-developed phenomena will stand and cannot be argued not to exist on the basis of so-called failed replications (e.g., 3,4,5,6,7). Scientific inferences go far beyond statistical inferences (51,53).…”