LA PREGUNTA
Why does a lie travel further than the truth?
¿Influye una significativamente en la otra? Deciden tres cuartas partes de los votos emitidos.
cerrada · volver a Acciones
Viendo como invitado. Escribe un nombre de usuario para unirte y participar.
Las preguntas se reparten entre los grupos, así que recibes las que le tocaron al tuyo — no las 162.
resueltas: 161 / 162 por responder: 0 por qué
Nadie podría responder varios cientos de pares. Cada par va a un grupo; un par que se divide se deriva después a otros grupos, así que puede aparecer más tarde en tu lista aunque empezara en otro sitio. La cifra de resueltas incluye el trabajo de todos los grupos, y por eso sube más rápido de lo que se acorta tu propia lista.
Último recuento: decididas: 161 · derivadas a paneles entre grupos: 0 · disputadas: 0 · sin quórum: 1 — los paneles necesitan al menos max(2, 75 % del panel) votos emitidos; tu panel más pequeño tiene 15 miembros.
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow → ¿influye en? → Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all
Nadie ha dicho nada aún.
Fase terminada — el registro de pares y votos queda arriba.Comprobar la lógica ↗
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | abierto | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✓ sí | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✓ sí | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✓ sí | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✓ sí | discutir |
| 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 | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ sí | discutir |
| 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 | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ sí | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✓ sí | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✓ sí | discutir |
| 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 | ✓ inferido | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ inferido | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ no | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ no | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ no | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ no | en foco ↑ · cerrar ✕ |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ no | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ no | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ no | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ no | discutir |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ no | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ no | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ no | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ no | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ no | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ no | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ no | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ no | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ no | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ no | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ no | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ no | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ no | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ no | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ no | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ no | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ no | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ no | discutir |
| 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 | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ no | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ no | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ no | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ no | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ no | discutir |