They could have included a neutral (non-framed) condition, so 1) no text on package, 2) "atheist" on package, 3) (random text) on package. Or; since they're trying to confirm the hypothesis that this has something to do with religion, 3) (random text) on package and 4) "In God we trust" on package (or something similar).
Statistics seem fine to me (like person below me said).
Either way, I really like the blue shoes and the price looks good to, I might order me a pair and ask for them to put "KILL ALL CHRISTIANS" on the box.
Prayer helps. Couldn't hurt.
Actually, it can.
All my previous study pals who got an MA in literature ended up jobless or somewhere completely outside of their field of study.
Science is a human endeavor, and prone to all the failings that humans possess. Stuff does fall through the cracks because it isn't perfect. It just happens to be the best system we've got that, in general and over the course of years, stumbles along towards progress.
Noted and agreed.
If you have a better alternative, please don't keep it a secret.
Passive-aggressive much?
I'll also note that all the counterexamples you list were, eventually, found out through the scientific process and repudiated by their original publishers
Eventually, yes. How many are still out there unrepudiated....? It took The Lancet years to finally retract Wakefield's criminally fraudulent paper. I know some of my colleagues that have tried to get papers down for several reasons, but most attempts just bogged down in an epistolary war of attrition with editors lasting sometimes years.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra