Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
I don't know why people always think bigger is better for sample size. Larger samples contribute to higher power but they also make it easier to find results that aren't practically significant.
If researchers blatantly data-mined, I think it would be obvious. As long as they reported the overall sample size, they couldn't really get away with "but on red headed women age 40-60, we found a significant result."
True unethicality would be starting with a sample size of 1,000, then writing a paper on the significant effect of Drug X on 50 middle-aged women with red hair without mentioning the other 950 people.
Those kinds of researchers might get away with it once or twice, but wouldn't last long, I hope.