The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia • Hacker News Board

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#141

Post by fujvcijccfbj » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:54 AM UTC

username90 wrote: post #89

pmyteh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My part of political science has been (attempting to) follow scientific method since the 1940s. Its results have been... underwhelming. The main reason for this, bluntly, is that people are really damned complicated . They're difficult to model, they behave irrationally, even a minimal model has way too many variables. Hell, they don't even vote using the same heuristics that they did 50 years ago. There's a reason w…

Right, the scientific method is mostly useless for social science which is why it is in such a dire state. My point is that we need something of equal significance for social science before it will start make noticeable progress, until then it will be on the level as Aristotelian physics.

Social sciences have their own methods, which are suited for the unique kinds of data and questions they deal with. Read John Law’s After Method: Mess in Social Science Research for a solid overview of why you can’t just mask natural science methods onto the social sciences, and which might also clue you into why your assumptions regarding the value of social science research are wrong.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#142

Post by fujvcijccfbj » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:55 AM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #124

username90 wrote: post #62

Social sciences has yet to find their scientific method. Natural science was mostly bullshit before the scientific method and it set them straight. So in my opinion listening to social scientists today is kinda like reading Aristotle to learn about physics. A lot of thoughts for sure, and it sounds smart, but it totally lacks any connection to reality.

why shouldn't social sciences use the scientific method? seems like all the issues with using it in social sciences arise from messy implementations

Social sciences have their own methods, which are suited for the unique kinds of data and questions they deal with. Read John Law’s After Method: Mess in Social Science Research for a solid overview of why you can’t just mask natural science methods onto the social sciences, and which might also clue you into why your assumptions regarding the value of social science research are wrong.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#143

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 8:09 AM UTC

mrrrgn wrote: post #120

Nasrudith wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds a bit naturalist fallacy - just because it is selected for doesn't mean it is ideal. Legacy is perfectly capable of leaving maladaption. The inertia can and has worked against them too. For instance it could have been from the history of human group hunting, warfare that sort of cohesion served better than intellectual ability in the short term. But under modern conditions the utility would invert - muscl…

> That sounds a bit naturalist fallacy When we see things in nature, it's always possible that they serve a purpose. Adaptive traits are selected for. It's also possible they aren't. It seems there are three possibilities: - Trait is useful. - Trait was useful (no longer is). - Trait is neutral. > Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies? Shouldn't a good programmer be able t…

"Adaptive" is not a Boolean. Contradictory, even mutually hostile, traits can develop because the ecosystem switches between different modes for various physical reasons [1] and different survival skills are optimal in each.

By the time you get to humans you have an incoherent patchwork of mutually exclusive behaviour modes and cognitive approaches - not just between individuals, but within individuals.

[1] Seasonal changes, population cycles, and so on.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#144

Post by comex » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #137

spaced-out wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The tax system is incredibly poorly designed everywhere. Rather than the hodgepodge of different races, levied at different places and times for different reasons by different levels of government a single tax is best. I’m partial to either a Georgist Land value tax or a consumption tax but I’m sure there are other good options. So you don't agree with how taxes work and think you could do better? I challenge you t…

> So you don't agree with how taxes work and think you could do better? I challenge you to find someone who DOESN'T think that. If you can point to a country that has only one tax or a party that has that position I’d be much obliged. > This is already the case. There are many services open to only US citizens, and others open only to citizens and lawful permanent residents. The US has different classes of citizenshi…

> The US has different classes of citizenship, with different rights?

The US has citizens, many different classes of lawful residents, and unlawful residents, each group having different rights and different levels of access to government services.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#145

Post by Vaskivo » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 10:52 AM UTC

13415 wrote: post #40

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

This is mostly wrong, because there is only one reality. As trivial as this may sound, if you're interested in reality, then you will invariably get to the same conclusion as many other people. Of course, there will always be some shifts in knowledge and at that time a fringe position can be the right one, but these are rare - very rare, indeed. Generally, the fact that there is one reality means that scientific opin…

I also believe there is only one reality.

But thinking that we currently understand it in its totality is complete arrogance. (I even doubt we can achieve it)

An subjectivity shows us that that understanding is way harder than it seems.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#146

Post by growlist » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 12:07 PM UTC

aalleavitch wrote: post #85

lostmymind66 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream population, doesn't mean your are incapable of independent thought. "That doesn't mean such a person won't be wrong as much as anyone else, but they're not necessarily more wrong than conventional wisdom" Conventional wisdom usually is a result of many generations passing down wisdom and knowledge down to the next generation. It's not always correct, but…

> Extremest views are also usually held by younger people, which immediately should be put up to more scrutiny, simple based on a lack of knowledge and life experience. On the other hand, as people get older they start to lose fluid intelligence and deliberative capacity and instead more regularly fall back on gut feelings and intuitions that might no longer apply in the present the same way they did in the past with…

> more regularly fall back on gut feelings and intuitions

also known as heuristics. And let's not pretend that younger people approach every problem through some kind of rigorous logical analysis. Young people round here look less prepared than ever for what awaits them (yes, I know we've been saying this since Roman times etc etc.)

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#147

Post by dfeliej » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

dannykwells wrote: post #79

Fede_V wrote: post #33

I am as anti-pomo/critical theory as it gets, but, sadly, this phenomena is very much present in the hard sciences as well. For example, about 10-15 years ago, the big craze in biology was microarrays, and the early papers made crazy promises about everything that they would deliver. With hindsight, it turned out almost all the early papers were fatally flawed and were drastically statistically underpowered: it turns…

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this. With things like microarrays and other tech, sure there were promises that were too big. But the underlying idea (gene expression matters, there are lots of genes, we should measure them all) is correct. To wit, RNA-seq has transformed cancer biology. And Nanostring is now offering a microarray-like technology with extremely impressive signal to noise. And we still use lots of tools…

In my experience, there's a disproportionate reward associated with fashions in science. That is, the people at the forefront of a trend get rewarded professionally (tenure, positions, promotion), even when behaving in a way that is irresponsible theoretically or empirically. The skeptics, on the other hand, who carefully lay out the problems with the new research, and eventually point out the obvious flaws, get treated as sticks-in-the-mud, etc., even though they are eventually proven correct.

There are gains to be made through innovation, and I'm not arguing against that. Sometimes too, details are just minor details to work out. But sometimes the details matter and point to bigger problems.

The problems with fads in science are that the focus in academics seems sometimes to be on popularity per se rather than verdicality, and denialism about scientific fads as a phenomenon. This is pointed out in the article, and is one of its better points.

Someone else criticized the article for not presenting solutions, which is fair, but I think that's in part because effective solutions would probably require a huge shift in culture in academics. We'd need to return to more stable professional positions rather than the cannabilistic postdoc system in place now, with declining tenure; we'd need to focus more on groups of researchers and findings rather than celebrity academics ala TED talks; we'd need to put much more emphasis on a pattern of replications rather than single studies; etc. etc. Even then, I don't think the problem would entirely go away.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#148

Post by glennpratt » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #138

glennpratt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, not really extremist, just boring, nationalist fear mongering that is nearly old as time. You are entitled to your opinions and I mine. You probably think I am incapable of independent thought and I think you're a narcissist for thinking that.

I’d be surprised if you were incapable of independent thought. If your political views all fit neatly within a single party’s mainstream it could be true but there’s enough that isn’t subject to political shibboleths that you likely hold some unconventional views. Just being the kind of person who takes part on a discussion board like this is (weak) evidence of the kind of engagement with ideas that renders taking a…

> your political views all fit neatly within a single party’s mainstream

That wasn't the claim I was addressing.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#149

Post by aalleavitch » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #146

aalleavitch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extremest views are also usually held by younger people, which immediately should be put up to more scrutiny, simple based on a lack of knowledge and life experience. On the other hand, as people get older they start to lose fluid intelligence and deliberative capacity and instead more regularly fall back on gut feelings and intuitions that might no longer apply in the present the same way they did in the past with…

> more regularly fall back on gut feelings and intuitions also known as heuristics. And let's not pretend that younger people approach every problem through some kind of rigorous logical analysis. Young people round here look less prepared than ever for what awaits them (yes, I know we've been saying this since Roman times etc etc.)

> And let's not pretend that younger people approach every problem through some kind of rigorous logical analysis. Young people round here look less prepared than ever for what awaits them (yes, I know we've been saying this since Roman times etc etc.)

I won't argue that, but it would be good to engage with them on the level of rigorous logical analysis, just as it's good for young people to try to understand the underlying reasoning behind older generation's heuristics.

In general, the more time and power we have to devote towards thinking critically about issues, the more we should use it. Heuristics are only valuable when time and resources are short. In a world of overwhelming technological advancement, opting not to look past the heuristic is simply covering your ears.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#150

Post by aalleavitch » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

lowdose wrote: post #100

aalleavitch wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This simply doesn't work in a bipolar system. Acknowledging the legitimacy of the opposite party's extremists is directly counter to either party's political goals, as it encourages mainstream opinion to shift in the opposite direction of where they want it to. The only winning play is to demand that extremists be ejected from the dialog altogether.

Are you against freedom of speech?

Actually, I support the opposite, which is aggressive initiatives for education to inoculate people against lies and manipulation.

However, until our resources are actually devoted towards that, there are political statements that can be made on a mass scale that are the functional equivalent of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. I don't begrudge people for doing what they can to prevent this kind of public manipulation from getting amplified.

I think everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want, but I think they should have to face responsibility for the results of that speech once it echoes across the world.