You...post updates to your study via the same channels?
Also, this assumes that all "errors" are alike, but a methodological error in a study is very different from "new evidence has come to light that questions the hypothesis", "we now know that these things have a third common cause", "we discovered in subsequent research that there are confounding factors we did not know to control for in the original study", etc.
IMHO, this comment badly misunderstands the point of scientific inquiry. It isn't to produce a final and immutable result, it's to make observations to rationally assess a hypothesis, and then to repeat the process. This means that science necessarily represents the best interpretation we have for existing observations, with the understanding that subsequent observation might show us confounding factors we couldn't have thought of before.
To put this another way: what if Newton had articulated his understanding of physics in the internet age, and then relativity came along? Do we now tar and feather Newton because he failed to anticipate the contradictions between his position and subsequent observations around the speed of light? That seems like an impossibly high standard to hold scientists to, and that to me is the crux of the problem: we should be expecting scientists to get things progressively more right and to explain why, not to get it completely right the first time.
Also, this assumes that all "errors" are alike, but a methodological error in a study is very different from "new evidence has come to light that questions the hypothesis", "we now know that these things have a third common cause", "we discovered in subsequent research that there are confounding factors we did not know to control for in the original study", etc.
IMHO, this comment badly misunderstands the point of scientific inquiry. It isn't to produce a final and immutable result, it's to make observations to rationally assess a hypothesis, and then to repeat the process. This means that science necessarily represents the best interpretation we have for existing observations, with the understanding that subsequent observation might show us confounding factors we couldn't have thought of before.
To put this another way: what if Newton had articulated his understanding of physics in the internet age, and then relativity came along? Do we now tar and feather Newton because he failed to anticipate the contradictions between his position and subsequent observations around the speed of light? That seems like an impossibly high standard to hold scientists to, and that to me is the crux of the problem: we should be expecting scientists to get things progressively more right and to explain why, not to get it completely right the first time.