Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 238 posts

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#161

Post by denimnerd42 »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #148
denimnerd42 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every mainstream thought about diet is untrustworthy to me due to the above type of example :/

it is. mainstream diets will tell you: * saturated fats are bad (lies told us by a crappy Ancel Keys study, promoted for decades by processed food companies (like Kellogs) ran by Seventh Day Adventists who were convinced "meat led man to dangerous impulses and temptation") * polyunsaturated fats are good. The American Heart Assocation had an article up for years that went as far as to claim Omega6s are heart healthy.…

what's an acceptable oil? olive? peanut? I was told to use olive oil (not even EVOO except for taste related) so that's what I get but it's impossible to know anything.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#162

Post by aaron695 »

Tarsul wrote: post #2

I still don't understand why we "believed" studies that claimed knowledge about typical behavior and subconscious decisions while those studies were only based on a single experiment with limited participants, e.g. Stanford Prison Experiment. These type of studies should ALWAYS be looked at critically and not just because they fail to reproduce but because they are based on a very small sample size in a very discreet…

SPE was needed at the time because everyone knew the Germans were like us, but needed a framework to say it.

It also opened up the idea the Japanese were like us too.

It allowed us to say what we believed and build on that.

It's not science. But science isn't the only way forward.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#163

Post by andi999 »

nicoburns wrote: post #157
munificent wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's insane that metascience isn't studied more. It is, probably more than is apparent. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowle... There is an interesting recursive problem here, though: what tools do you use to scientifically analyze the scientific process? Whatever tools you use will themselves be hobbled by the same systemic flaws you…

I might be biased as someone who studied philosophy. But I wish Philosophy of Science was mandatory in more science degrees. A lot of scientists don't seem to be familiar.

Can you point to something good and useful in the Philosophie of Science? I mean let's say physics is as good as it gets (laws in mathematical language, strong experimental evidence, solid results); from my perspective a success. But it has nothing to do with how like popper imagines science. So insisting on like a popper process would also not be benificial for physics in my opinion. But probably there is better stuff, I just couldn't find it. (with a popper mindset nobody would understand why we still study 'falsified' theories like electrodynamics)

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#164

Post by munificent »

xxpor wrote: post #141
munificent wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fun to realize how deeply ingrained the current scientific process is in our way of thinking. All of these ideas that you tacitly take for granted are itself mutable parts of the scientific process: * That iterative improvement and hill-climbing is an effective process for improving results. * That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise. * That truth can be expressed numerica…

The only nit I'd pick with the list is: * That truth can be expressed numerically. Isn't the basic point of quantum physics that this isn't true? We can only make guesses with probabilities, but we can't know the actual truth, and therefore can't express it numerically.

Sure, but the probabilities are numbers too. Which is again sort of acknowledging the need to fit quantum mechanics into a numeric framework.

Imagine you were studying ice cream flavors. You might design a study like, "We'll ask a lot of people and the flavor that the most people prefer is the best." In other words, the metaprocess you use to design your experiment itself tacitly assumes you need a numeric result. The presumption of comparison and quantifying frames the questions you even think to ask.

But you can imagine an alternate culture that when studying ice cream flavors doesn't even ask questions with numeric answers. It could be, "We'll ask a lot of people to try flavors and write poems about the experience."

We wouldn't even call this "science". Because there is a hidden border around even the term that affects how we are able to evolve the scientific process.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#165

Post by jonsen »

analog31 wrote: post #155
caenn wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and if you think metascience is bad, imagine meta-metascience.

Where's tail call optimization when you need it?

Would be nice if tail call optimization solved the halting problem.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#166

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

hypersoar wrote: post #120
stevetodd wrote: post #46

Reading the other comments about the lack of integrity in scientific research that they’ve witnessed, is it any wonder why people might be skeptical about important issues like climate change, vaccines, masks, etc? There’s great research being done and a larger part of the population is becoming more and more skeptical because lies are being published and touted. Science needs to clean its house.

The skepticism about climate change is due much less to issues with the scientific community that than it is to decades of propoganda funded by people who fear losing money to efforts to fight it.

Are you suggesting there is only money, power, and propaganda by deniers of climate change? Don’t you think it’s possible there are people exaggerating it for money, and power?

I don’t think ”they use propaganda and everyone who disagrees is just wrong” is a good argument when the topic is “we know in other areas there are issues with the scientific community so why not this one”.

We can still have the right answer and have gotten there the wrong way.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#167

Post by missingrib »

nicoburns wrote: post #157
munificent wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's insane that metascience isn't studied more. It is, probably more than is apparent. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowle... There is an interesting recursive problem here, though: what tools do you use to scientifically analyze the scientific process? Whatever tools you use will themselves be hobbled by the same systemic flaws you…

I might be biased as someone who studied philosophy. But I wish Philosophy of Science was mandatory in more science degrees. A lot of scientists don't seem to be familiar.

Yeah I think the fundamental distinction is that metascience is probably at its core going to be philosophy, but that doesn't have to make it any less rigorous. And I agree, Philsoophy of Science being included in more science degrees would be great. One of the most interesting courses I took in my undergrad.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#168

Post by didibus »

munificent wrote: post #136
chromaton wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what tools do you use to scientifically analyze the scientific process? Iterating on existing systems to see if you can get results to converge and also testing new systems to see if they also result in known good values.

It's fun to realize how deeply ingrained the current scientific process is in our way of thinking. All of these ideas that you tacitly take for granted are itself mutable parts of the scientific process: * That iterative improvement and hill-climbing is an effective process for improving results. * That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise. * That truth can be expressed numerica…

> That culture might be more or less effective (again, according to what metrics?)

Isn't this the idea of "free will". That you get to choose for yourself the metrics you want to optimize your life for?

Now I think that you'll use a combination of learned and inherited desires for it. But the idea here is that each individual can express those desires, and then the "success" of a society is thus to maximize each individuals success, even when they differ in their metrics.

That's a made up concept as well, but I think it still stems from individual desires. We've just mostly all individually observed that an organized society that compromises with each other to maximize each and everyone's individual desires has less risk to our own desires being squandered.

The alternative would be to try to achieve power over others to maximize your desires, and maybe from history and life experience, people have found that to be not sustainable or only achievable for a few, thus your chances at it are lower.

In essence, I think I'm saying that it seems over time people know their desires, but don't know how to beat fulfill them, and this is the metric.

Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

#170

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

ouid wrote: post #51
jcims wrote: post #9

I have no basis to argue against the article, but I would think there is more incentive to game it now so I wouldn't take it as a given that things have improved.

Bonferroni effects have, at least in the popular consciousnes, become much more front and center. I wonder how many people on the stre can define p-hacking. Most educated people know about the reproducibility crisis, and I would wager that around half of them understand the cause. That seems like it might create a better environment.

> around half of them understand the cause

I’m in the half that doesn’t know, apparently.

I considered that with hard sciences, the cost, time, equipment, conditions, etc were limiting factors. I think this paper on subatomic particles changing into antimatter is interesting, it was observed in a unique facility, once, under some condition that can never repeat, etc. Just kinda have to take your word for it.

As to soft sciences… I really don’t know there. Give me a hint?

Post reply on HN