SPØRSMÅLET
Why does a lie travel further than the truth?
Påvirker det ene det andre i betydelig grad? Tre firedeler av de avgitte stemmene avgjør.
stengt · tilbake til fasen Tiltak
Du ser på som gjest. Skriv inn et brukernavn for å bli med og delta.
Spørsmålene fordeles mellom gruppene, så du får dem gruppen din ble tildelt — ikke alle 162.
avgjort: 161 / 162 til deg å svare på: 0 hvorfor
Ingen kunne svart på flere hundre par. Hvert par går til én gruppe; et par som deler gruppen, sendes så videre til andre grupper, så det kan dukke opp i listen din senere selv om det startet et annet sted. Antallet avgjorte omfatter alle gruppenes arbeid, og derfor stiger det raskere enn din egen liste krymper.
Siste opptelling: avgjort 161 · sendt videre til paneler på tvers av grupper 0 · omstridt 0 · under kvorum 1 — paneler trenger minst max(2, 75% av panelet) avgitte stemmer; ditt minste panel har 15 medlemmer.
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it → påvirker? → Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes
Ingenting sagt ennå.
Fullført fase — protokollen over par og stemmer står ovenfor.Sjekk logikken ↗
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | åpent | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| 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 | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| 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 | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✓ ja | diskuter |
| 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 | ✓ utledet | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ utledet | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | i fokus ↑ · lukk ✕ |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| 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 | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ nei | diskuter |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ nei | diskuter |