Irreplicability 

 I just read an  interesting article  in the New Yorker (hat tip to John Sheffield) that gives an entertaining introduction to the so-called "decline effect" in scientific discovery.  Apparently, at least a few scientists have had trouble reproducing the large effect sizes of initial studies on various topics (I'm shocked, shocked!).  Some argue that the trend is general -- the initial studies on any topic will find big effect sizes that will be harder and harder to replicate over time.  My guess is that this is simply a story about the problems of searching for "significance," but people interviewed in the article offer other explanations as well, including the possibility that nature is out to get scientists by teasing them with results and then making them go away. 

 "But wait," you say, "wouldn't the discovery of the 'decline effect' also be subject to the decline effect?"  Is this yet another situation where people focus on apparently confirmatory cases while ignoring cases that don't confirm their hunch?  I'm hoping "yes", if only because it would be deliciously ironic. 

 And if all this doesn't make you depressed about the durability of published findings, try this  gem  by John Ioannidis.