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

71–80 of 238 posts

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

#71

Post by WalterGR »

Bayart wrote: post #67
m12k wrote: post #15

When 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?

Epistemology is an interesting field, but it's just *not part of the curriculum for engineering and experimental sciences types. I only had a good introduction to it when I took it as an optional course in a humanities college.

*just not part

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

rvba wrote: post #56
m12k wrote: post #15

When 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?

Current "science" is often not interested in replication or even testing if experiments can be replicated. The culture is tk be quoted and "science but boring" is not quoted. On top of that there is publish or perish. Also dont want to point fingrers but some scientists come from places where cheating is the norm.

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by failwhaleshark »

ouid wrote: post #54
failwhaleshark wrote: post #31

If it is not a hard science, then it is likely a variant of philosophy.

I think you could effectively argue that mathematics is a branch of philosophy.

You can construct proofs for mathematics, but not for the existence or refutation of a divine creator.

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

#74

Post by dash2 »

hpoe wrote: post #59
dash2 wrote: post #47

Earlier 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…

After following up on your sources, I surrender my position. It appears that the quest for truth has largely been abandoned in academia, and that integrity is a fools dream. We truly are as T.S Elot said the hollow men.

Let's not go overboard now....

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

#75

Post by EGreg »

m12k wrote: post #15

When 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?

It is, but you arent aware because metameta science isn’t covered enough

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

#76

Post by lotsofpulp »

Sr_developer wrote: post #50
publicola1990 wrote: post #26

Much of such dubious "science" is packaged by self help authours as miracle principles which are going to set ones life right. Popular books like "Power Of Habit" and Cal Newport's books also seem to fall into this category, and seem to enjoy huge patronage, even in HN.

There is a cottage industry of what you may call,if you feel uncharitable, bullshit peddlers: Simon Sinek Cal Newport Charles Duhigg Mark Manson Ryan Hollyday Malcolm Gladwell The list is endless to be honest, they are each different on their own way but they have the following common points: - They are on this for the money, so expect them to be always pushing their books, products, next book, next tour, next progra…

A good rule of thumb is to assume increasing probabilities of bullshit for subjects further to the left on this scale:

https://xkcd.com/435/

Even biology outside of a cellular level is already above 50% BS for me. It is just insanely difficult to have the necessary controls.

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

#77

Post by failwhaleshark »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #63
failwhaleshark wrote: post #31

If it is not a hard science, then it is likely a variant of philosophy.

What is a “hard science”? The only distinction I care about is exactness and non-exactness. Is the research based upon formulating a theory that is capable of forecassting not-yet observed events a nonexistent, exact margin or error, and are the conditions then re-created to see if the forecast is within the margin of error that the instruments that measure it have? Some say biology is “hard”, and some say it is “sof…

This has been answered a million times before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

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

#78

Post by Bayart »

WalterGR wrote: post #71
Bayart wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epistemology is an interesting field, but it's just *not part of the curriculum for engineering and experimental sciences types. I only had a good introduction to it when I took it as an optional course in a humanities college.

*just not part

Indeed !

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

#79

Post by Tenoke »

chromaton wrote: post #62
tgv wrote: post #14

And that's without knowing how the study was really executed. Where I worked, there was a relatively successful postdoc who presented the results of his p<.05 significant pilot study. When asked, he said it wasn't the first pilot. It was the 20th.

Somehow one of the 3 experimental groups has 16 people, whereas the other groups have 14 people. Wonder why...

For what is worth studies do end up with different amounts of people due to dropping out, people not matching criteria which are only checked later, indivisibility by number of groups etc.

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

#80

Post by vlovich123 »

This is a flawed logical argument. Imagine this article from 1830:

"If you think phrenology is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1810".

Rinse & repeat for the appropriate time frames for alchemy, astrology, or any other field that tried to misapply science. Just because a field is studied for a long time or tries to apply the scientific method doesn't lend credence to the approach. All it means is, at best, we've managed to toss some things that are now obviously wrong/flaws. In 20 years we'll be doing the same to things we "know" today OR the flaws will remain because we don't have the math/science to demonstrate the flaws more obviously & there's social pressure to keep "building" (even if the foundation is flawed). However, as we should all be aware, false knowledge grows exponentially more quickly than our true understanding of the universe because our imagination is limitless.

Post reply on HN