問い
Why does a lie travel further than the truth?
一方は他方に大きく影響しますか？投じられた票の4分の3で決まります。
終了 · 対策に戻る
ゲストとして閲覧中。参加するにはユーザー名を入力してください。
問いはグループに分配されるので、あなたに届くのは自分のグループに割り当てられたものだけです（全162件ではありません）。
決着 161/162 あなたの回答待ち：0 理由
数百ものペアに答えられる人はいません。各ペアは一つのグループに渡され、意見が割れたペアは他のグループに回されます。そのため、別のところで始まったペアが後からあなたの一覧に現れることがあります。決着の数にはすべてのグループの作業が含まれるので、自分の一覧が減るより速く増えていきます。
前回の集計：決着 161 · グループ横断パネルへ回付 0 · 争いあり 0 · 定足数未満 1 — パネルには max(2, パネルの75%) 以上の票が必要です。最小のパネルのメンバーは15人です.
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public → 影響する？ → There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early
まだ発言はありません。
完了した段階です。ペアと投票の記録は上にあります。論理を確かめる ↗
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | 未決 | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✓ はい | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ 推論 | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ 推論 | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 表示中 ↑ · 閉じる ✕ |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ いいえ | 議論する |