A PERGUNTA
Why does a lie travel further than the truth?
Um influencia significativamente o outro? Decidem três quartos dos votos expressos.
fechada · voltar a Ações
A ver como convidado. Introduza um nome de utilizador para entrar e participar.
As perguntas são repartidas entre os grupos, por isso recebe as que foram dadas ao seu grupo — não todas as 162.
decididos: 161 / 162 para responder: 0 porquê
Ninguém conseguiria responder a várias centenas de pares. Cada par vai para um grupo; um par que se divide é depois enviado a outros grupos, por isso pode aparecer mais tarde na sua lista, mesmo tendo começado noutro lado. A contagem de decididos inclui o trabalho de todos os grupos, e é por isso que sobe mais depressa do que a sua própria lista encolhe.
Última contagem: decididos 161 · enviados a painéis entre grupos 0 · disputados 0 · abaixo do quórum 1 — os painéis precisam de pelo menos max(2, 75% do painel) votos expressos; o seu painel mais pequeno tem 15 membros.
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance → influencia? → Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along
Ainda nada foi dito.
Fase concluída — o registo de pares e votos mantém-se acima.Verificar a lógica ↗
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | em aberto | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✓ sim | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✓ sim | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✓ sim | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✓ sim | 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 | ✓ sim | 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 | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ sim | 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 | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✓ sim | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✓ sim | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✓ sim | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ não | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ não | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ não | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ não | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ não | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ não | discutir |
| Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ não | discutir |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ não | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ não | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ não | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it | → | The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised | ✗ não | discutir |
| Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | → | The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it | ✗ não | discutir |
| The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association | → | Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | ✗ não | discutir |
| A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes | → | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | ✗ não | discutir |
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | → | Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ não | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ não | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | em foco ↑ · fechar ✕ |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ não | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ não | discutir |
| There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | discutir |
| Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ não | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ não | discutir |
| Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ não | discutir |
| A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | → | Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable | ✗ não | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance | ✗ não | 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 | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | ✗ não | discutir |
| Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline | → | So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | ✗ não | discutir |
| So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it | → | Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing | ✗ não | discutir |
| The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public | → | You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | ✗ não | discutir |
| You cannot check a claim whose data is not released | → | Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along | ✗ não | discutir |