Editing Normal distribution (section)

=== Methodological problems and peer review ===
[[John Ioannidis]] [[Why Most Published Research Findings Are False|argued]] that using normally distributed standard deviations as standards for validating research findings leave [[falsifiability|falsifiable predictions]] about phenomena that are not normally distributed untested. This includes, for example, phenomena that only appear when all necessary conditions are present and one cannot be a substitute for another in an addition-like way and phenomena that are not randomly distributed. Ioannidis argues that standard deviation-centered validation gives a false appearance of validity to hypotheses and theories where some but not all falsifiable predictions are normally distributed since the portion of falsifiable predictions that there is evidence against may and in some cases are in the non-normally distributed parts of the range of falsifiable predictions, as well as baselessly dismissing hypotheses for which none of the falsifiable predictions are normally distributed as if were they unfalsifiable when in fact they do make falsifiable predictions. It is argued by Ioannidis that many cases of mutually exclusive theories being accepted as validated by research journals are caused by failure of the journals to take in empirical falsifications of non-normally distributed predictions, and not because mutually exclusive theories are true, which they cannot be, although two mutually exclusive theories can both be wrong and a third one correct.<ref>Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005</ref>