At first it seems trivial somehow, but even finding this in articles needs a close attention.

Moreover, researchers have substantial degrees of freedom to conduct many different tests, and selection of those that yield positive results over those that yield negative results will increase the likelihood of attractive results at the expense of accuracy."

Even if there are no relationships to find, some of those tests will elicit apparent evidence––positive results––by chance. If researchers selectively report positive results more frequently than negative results, then the likelihood of false positives will increase.

"The problem of failing to distinguish between postdiction and prediction is vastly underestimated in practice. Researchers may conduct lots of studies and test many possible relationships.

In fact, je devrais remercier votre supervision et votre aide. And yes, stay tuned for fnirs :)))

Ah, the best news of today! Merci for sharing it!

Merci pour votre conférence intéressante et informative 🙏

That will be great professor 😅

People are murdered inside, and rejected from the outside; the daily life in Iran. C'est ca. The end

I am honored that I could be a help Dr. Dumas. This is the beginning though :)