Welcome to Gaming! Come chat with us in the GoatChat network (desktop users click here). We also have an Official Steam Group.
All sub rules are defined in detail here and open for feedback
-
Submissions must be related to gaming.
-
Titles must be clear and reflect content of the submission. Include game titles where necessary.
-
No Clickbait (defined).
-
No links to illegal torrents or other illegal downloads/content.
-
No link posts to merchandise and/or unrelated products (exceptions).
-
Mark all spoilers with: [](#s "Text goes here")
-
Mark all NSFW posts appropriately.
-
Submissions reposted within 6 months will be removed.
Content creators, please read our community Content Creator Guidelines
What you're encouraged to post:
Games! We should talk about games more than anything! New releases, old favorites, Speed Runs, Let's Play's, development news, what we love, what we hate and so on and so forth.
Try to post things that create discussion. We want people to feel engaged and feel their voices are heard, rather than to be a place of disposable content.
If you're not sure, ask!
If you wish to, you can archive your posts here.
Check out v/gaming's megathread of gaming-related subverses
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Contrabardus 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Not true. That's a false dichotomy.
They could also have been inept, or just had unusual findings that were completely legit that couldn't be duplicated. There are any number of reasons outside of dishonesty that could have led to a false positive. Anything from an abnormal sample, to a math error, to something as simple as a bad control.
This is why peer review exists. It's not just to catch liars and fraud, but also to weed out errors and correct mistakes. In fact, it's more for the latter than the former.
Retractions are common for individual papers and studies, and it's not because there are a lot scam artists or frauds in the scientific community. It's because one little error or unaccounted for factor can change the outcome of a study and taint the results.
This is the Scientific Method working the way it's supposed to.
I would also dispute the article's claim that 'the debate' of the influence of violent video games is 'raging on'. It's over, and has been for a while. It's 'raging on' in the same manner that the debate about the influence of 'rock and roll', 'comic books', 'television', and 'dungeons and dragons' is still raging on.
The debate such as it is, is over. It's just being clung to by fringe nut jobs of the same sort as 'Flat Earthers', people who claim the 'Moon landings were faked', and the Bible is a completely literal account Creationists.