Commenting on Jonah Lehrer’s article on “The Truth Wears Off,” and how once rock-solid science eventually becomes impossible to replicate, Chris Blattman blames publication bias in all of its various forms.

The culprit? Not biology. Not adaptation to drugs. Not even prescription to less afflicted patients. Rather, it’s scientists themselves.

Journals reward statistical significance, and too many academics massage or select results until the magical two asterisks are reached.

But more worrisome is that much of the problem might be more unconscious: a profession-wide tendency to pay attention to, pursue, write up, publish, and cite unusually large and statistically significant findings.

This is all true, and it’s why you should reject out of hand studies like the one documenting “precognition” that made the rounds a few months ago.  (Who’s gonna even mention, let alone publish a study reporting that “we tried but just couldn’t find evidence that people can see the future”?)

But do be careful:  if there is a publication bias in favor of the unexpected, then you have just as much reason to doubt that the “truth wears off.”  If a fact was first proven then disproven, was publication bias to blame for the proof or the disproof?