2 ms·
Not to try to derail the conversation, but I have noticed a very poor understanding of statistics and experimentation in all of the "soft" sciences, in particul
by mhuffman 11y ago
Not to try to derail the conversation, but I have noticed a very poor understanding of statistics and experimentation in all of the "soft" sciences, in particular, the social sciences.
It is not uncommon to see published and "peer reviewed" work that makes sweeping claims off a tiny amount of self-reported data with nothing else to back it up. I have seen plenty of stuff that people on the "hard" sciences side of campuses would be embarrassed to even take responsibility for ... not to say they don't try to slip one by every now and again, but it seems systemic in the "soft" sciences.
- KingMob 11y agoThis is endemic to all the sciences, not just the social ones. Biology has just as poor (if not worse) an understanding of stats, and even worse pressures in terms of the money at stake (medicine, pharmaceuticals). Maybe physics, and to some extent, chemistry, are immune, I'm less familiar with them. The issue is less stats, and more the pressure to publish, file drawer effects, poor career prospects for replication work relative to original research, fishing without multiple comparisons correction, etc. etc. etc. All of which combines to result in a lot of scientists looking the other way because the rules for stats and the rules for tenure aren't in alignment. I saw all this first-hand when I was a grad student in cognitive neuroscience. Don't for a second believe this is limited to psychology. If anything, psychology is being more honest and grappling with these issues first.