Before revision: Potential costs to science Kerr (1998, p. 211) listed 12 potential costs of HARKing: Translating Type I errors into hard-to-eradicate theory Propounding theories that cannot (pending replication) pass Popper's disconfirmability test Disguising post hoc explanations as a priori explanations Not communicating valuable information about what did not work Taking unjustified statistical licence Presenting an inaccurate model of science to students Encouraging ‘fudging’ in other grey areas Making us less receptive to serendipitous findings Encouraging adoption of narrow, context-bound new theory Encouraging retention of too-broad, disconfirmable old theory Inhibiting identification of plausible alternative hypotheses Implicitly violating basic ethical principles Rubin ( 2019 ) provided a critical analysis of Kerr's (1998) 12 costs of HARKing.
After revision: Potential costs to science Kerr (1998, p. 211) listed 12 potential costs of HARKing: Translating Type I errors into hard-to-eradicate theory Propounding theories that cannot (pending replication) pass Popper's disconfirmability test Disguising post hoc explanations as a priori explanations Not communicating valuable information about what did not work Taking unjustified statistical licence Presenting an inaccurate model of science to students Encouraging ‘fudging’ in other grey areas Making us less receptive to serendipitous findings Encouraging adoption of narrow, context-bound new theory Encouraging retention of too-broad, disconfirmable old theory Inhibiting identification of plausible alternative hypotheses Implicitly violating basic ethical principles Rubin ( 2022 ) provided a critical analysis of Kerr's (1998) 12 costs of HARKing.