3 ms·
The article makes some good points (bad points, too) but the title is misleading sensationalism. You can't draw conclusions about science as a whole based on f
by nerder 11y ago
The article makes some good points (bad points, too) but the title is misleading sensationalism. You can't draw conclusions about science as a whole based on faults in in the fields of psychology and sociology. If anything the problems in those fields derive from their influence from the field of philosophy. These problems tend to disappear as fields of science become less and less philosophical.
- stdbrouw 11y agoPsychology is about as far from philosophy as you can get. It relies almost exclusively on experimental evidence and rigorous operationalization of concepts. Similarly the medical sciences are having lots of trouble with nonreplicable research, and I don't think biology is particularly philosophical. The interesting part in fact is that it's not necessarily science or its methods that is at fault here, it is scientists and the social systems that they work in – the publication system, the peer review system, the tenure system. In that sense, the title is very apropos.
- nerder 11y agoWhat you're missing is the usual scientific approaches don't work in psychology so they've turned to philosophers and "philosophers of science" to come up with ways of demonstrating truth. Psychology may be rigorous compared to philosophy but it isn't when compared to the hard sciences. > The interesting part in fact is that it's not necessarily science or its methods that is at fault here... The problem is we have "sciences" that don't use scientific rigor and may be incapable of handling tools as complex as p-values without misunderstanding and abusing them. To me it's the lack of science and its methods that's at fault here.