What a BS headline
If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
201–210 of 238 posts
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 meta process you use to design your experiment itself tacitly assumes you need a numeric result. T…
Funny thing about quantum mechanics... we use numbers to describe probabilities and functions to describe probability distributions. But the mathematical models we use are incomplete (and, looking at neutron decay, incompatible) so can we really conclude that numbers are the right abstraction?
And no, not poems. Elements of finite groups are not numbers, but they crop up in physics frequently. Topologies are not numbers, but they're also significant in physics.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are naive about history. I'm an economist. If I threw away the half of the data that didn't support my findings, and got caught, I'd lose my job and never publish again. I'm pretty sure the same is true in other social sciences, such as psychology. This is true irrespective of the well-documented problems that the article describes, which certainly also apply in economics and elsewhere, to varying degrees…
But let's not pretend that historians influence the policy makers as much as sociologists and economists do either. The damages when they are wrong are orders of magnitude bigger. They are assumed to be right, sometimes even without proof, until they are tragically proven wrong. And nobody lose their job anyway. Have you ever seen a sociologist lose the job because proposed something to a politician that resulted in…
Economic policy is implemented by the parliament and the executive branch. It rarely closely follows advice by the economists. Even the Fed chair is a lawyer!
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some key things for me would be the ideas that: 1. There is no such thing as objectivity in inquiry. There is always a scientist interpreting things, and they are always looking at things through the lens of their own biases and cultural norms. The best you can hope to do is to be aware of your limitations. 1. Statistical evidence on its own is not always a good basis for believing something to be true. Typically you…
1. This is pretty trivial. Why do you think most scientists aren’t aware of their limitations? 2. This is studied in statistics classes. It is impossible to analyze data without a statistical model, so of course your conclusions rely on it. So this is also quite trivial. 3. Again, are scientists oblivious to this simple notion? I doubt it.
A lot of this stuff applies more to bad scientists, of which there are many.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some key things for me would be the ideas that: 1. There is no such thing as objectivity in inquiry. There is always a scientist interpreting things, and they are always looking at things through the lens of their own biases and cultural norms. The best you can hope to do is to be aware of your limitations. 1. Statistical evidence on its own is not always a good basis for believing something to be true. Typically you…
1. This is pretty trivial. Why do you think most scientists aren’t aware of their limitations? 2. This is studied in statistics classes. It is impossible to analyze data without a statistical model, so of course your conclusions rely on it. So this is also quite trivial. 3. Again, are scientists oblivious to this simple notion? I doubt it.
LudwigNagasena, to you it may be obvious ( as it was to me). However I discovered ( much to my disappointment) that it is not obvious to career 'scientists'. A fool with a phd is still a fool. What used to the domain of primarily religions (rituals, superstitions etc.) is now the domain of several offshoots, one of which is mainstream science.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. This is pretty trivial. Why do you think most scientists aren’t aware of their limitations? 2. This is studied in statistics classes. It is impossible to analyze data without a statistical model, so of course your conclusions rely on it. So this is also quite trivial. 3. Again, are scientists oblivious to this simple notion? I doubt it.
LudwigNagasena, to you it may be obvious ( as it was to me). However I discovered ( much to my disappointment) that it is not obvious to career 'scientists'. A fool with a phd is still a fool. What used to the domain of primarily religions (rituals, superstitions etc.) is now the domain of several offshoots, one of which is mainstream science.
Is this coming from judging peoples actions or discussion with acquaintances and colleagues, or in discussion with trusted friends who are career scientists?
My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#207When you think about it, it's insane that metascience isn't studied more. We're going to question every little detail about the universe, but we're just going to take on faith that peer-review and publication in journals is an effective method for weeding out "bad" science?
When someone hits you with a truck-load of mathematical jargon and convoluted experimental setups, most people just end up fatigued and find themselves nodding to conclusions out of fear of looking stupid. And the problem is only amplified by the recent "Science Rocks!" attitude making the rounds in pop culture.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about how loose medical science used to be (and for how long)! leeches, bloodletting, miasma, ridiculous enemas and all sorts of outright nonsense. We've got a lot more mistakes to make, but social sciences will improve too.
To be fair, no one was using statistics and the scientific method to support bloodletting, or miasma theory.
No, but let's not forget that much of statistics was originally invented to provide a rigorous underpinning for eugenics. Pearson, who invented many of the most commonly used statistical results, was a prominent eugenicist and contributed greatly to its ideas.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#209Earlier 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.
It's not that useful in practice though, for many fields a bit more ethics is a much more pressing issue.
Re: If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
LudwigNagasena, to you it may be obvious ( as it was to me). However I discovered ( much to my disappointment) that it is not obvious to career 'scientists'. A fool with a phd is still a fool. What used to the domain of primarily religions (rituals, superstitions etc.) is now the domain of several offshoots, one of which is mainstream science.
Is this coming from judging peoples actions or discussion with acquaintances and colleagues, or in discussion with trusted friends who are career scientists? My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.
Mostly based on the 'science' out there. I probably know about 3 career scientists, I think, which is probably not a good sample.
>My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.
I can agree that a lot of it may be probably incentive based vs 'scientists' just not being smart enough. But is is hard to glean what the proportions are. I still suspect ( based on a general assessment of people both known and on the internet) that it is the latter.