4 ms·

I am more cynical after seeing people I agree with cite tenuous studies as facts. All of social science is sketchy, especially studies with results that make yo

I am more cynical after seeing people I agree with cite tenuous studies as facts. All of social science is sketchy, especially studies with results that make you feel good. For example, my friend and I read an Economist article that said 10% of American doctors are Muslim. We could not verify the source, but people are going to believe it's true because it was in the Economist.

danharaj 11y ago
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490160/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490160/ Apparently ~2.7% as measured by this study in 2005. Surprised I could not find department of labor statistics on the question. I would say that it is very possible that the proportion has increased drastically since 2005: Many of the people who have fled Iraq and Syria since then are skilled professionals including doctors.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  There are about 1 million doctors in the US and 20k new doctors every year. In order to go from 2.7% to 10% in 10 years then that means ~40% of all new doctors from 2005 to 2015 were Muslim. As much as I hate Trump, I don't think this is possible.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I find it hard to believe that there are only 20K new doctors a year if there are 1 million doctors. This would imply that the turn over time for doctors is at least 50 years and in all likelihood greater given the growth in total doctor numbers over the last 50 years. This is just not plausible.
    - kelukelugames 11y ago
      You can easily google for stats. I am happy to see different numbers.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        I am not doubting what you are telling us is what you have found, just that the numbers have to be wrong as it is not plausible that there is only 2% turnover in doctors each year.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      This says 767,000 and ~29,000: https://www.aamc.org/download/426242/data/ihsreportdownload.pdf https://www.aamc.org/download/426242/data/ihsreportdownload.... So that takes the coarse estimate down to 25 years.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        This is at least a plausible number. While we still have not established if the 10% number has any basis in fact, you would only need 19.3% of new doctors to be muslim to shift the numbers. This still seems high to me, but it is possible.
pron 11y ago
> All of social science is sketchy Not any more than any other science that relies on sampling humans (I'm looking at medicine). Both start yielding stronger results when they explore the effect of mechanisms that are already known, and have a bad record of discovering "surprising" effects. The antidote is simple: never rely on a single study, or even two.
iak8god 11y ago
> All of social science is sketchy... We could not verify the source, but people are going to believe it's true because it was in the Economist. It seems like your real beef here is with journalism (even the higher-than-average quality journalism that normally appears in the Economist). The fact that some news magazine doesn't include citations for claims in an article[1] has nothing to do with the sketchiness (or non-sketchiness) of "social science." It is too bad though that the Economist doesn't provide citations for claims like this. Did they pull "10%" out of thin air? Are 10% of new medical doctorates currently earned by Muslims? Did they include all kinds of doctorates (PhD, etc) in the calculation? A simple link to the source for this number would clear that all up... [1] http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21679823-despite-attack-san-bernardino-americas-defences-against-jihadism-are-high http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21679823-despite...
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Both. Paper: "We put three women and three men in a room for 10 minutes and they brainstormed 1.3 extra ideas than a room of 6 men." Article: "Study proves gender balance leads to better meetings!"
  - iak8god 11y ago
    Amusing, but I don't quite agree with this characterization of "all of social science." But here's something interesting: I've tracked down a source for the 10% claim, and it's absolutely bonkers: * An editorial[1] in the Detroit Free Press makes the following claim: | "an analysis of statistics provided by the American Medical Association indicates that 10% of all American physicians are Muslims" That certainly makes it sound like the AMA thinks that 10% of American physicians are Muslims. * The source provided for this claim, "Muslim Doctors Abundant, But Muslim Hospitals Non-Existent"[2] is a 2008 post on a site called The Muslim Link. Here's how that post arrived at the 10% claim: * 113,585 Physicians in the US (2006) * 7,000 current and retired physicians are members of the Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent of North America * 5.9% of African Americans are Muslim; 3.5% of physicians are African American; therefore there are 2000 African American Muslim physicians * 7000 + 2000 = 9000; 9000 is just about 10% of 113,585 I shit you not, that's the most straightforward reading of the analysis at [2]. Now it's in the Economist. I seriously hope they got that number somewhere else. [1] http://www.freep.com/article/20140128/OPINION05/301280121/dave-agema-racism-gay-remarks-muslim-republican-gop-michigan http://www.freep.com/article/20140128/OPINION05/301280121/da... [2] http://www.muslimlinkpaper.com/myjumla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1440 http://www.muslimlinkpaper.com/myjumla/index.php?option=com_...

danharaj 11y ago

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490160/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490160/ Apparently ~2.7% as measured by this study in 2005. Surprised I could not find department of labor statistics on the question. I would say that it is very possible that the proportion has increased drastically since 2005: Many of the people who have fled Iraq and Syria since then are skilled professionals including doctors.

kelukelugames 11y ago
There are about 1 million doctors in the US and 20k new doctors every year. In order to go from 2.7% to 10% in 10 years then that means ~40% of all new doctors from 2005 to 2015 were Muslim. As much as I hate Trump, I don't think this is possible.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I find it hard to believe that there are only 20K new doctors a year if there are 1 million doctors. This would imply that the turn over time for doctors is at least 50 years and in all likelihood greater given the growth in total doctor numbers over the last 50 years. This is just not plausible.
  - kelukelugames 11y ago
    You can easily google for stats. I am happy to see different numbers.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      I am not doubting what you are telling us is what you have found, just that the numbers have to be wrong as it is not plausible that there is only 2% turnover in doctors each year.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    This says 767,000 and ~29,000: https://www.aamc.org/download/426242/data/ihsreportdownload.pdf https://www.aamc.org/download/426242/data/ihsreportdownload.... So that takes the coarse estimate down to 25 years.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      This is at least a plausible number. While we still have not established if the 10% number has any basis in fact, you would only need 19.3% of new doctors to be muslim to shift the numbers. This still seems high to me, but it is possible.

pron 11y ago

> All of social science is sketchy Not any more than any other science that relies on sampling humans (I'm looking at medicine). Both start yielding stronger results when they explore the effect of mechanisms that are already known, and have a bad record of discovering "surprising" effects. The antidote is simple: never rely on a single study, or even two.

iak8god 11y ago

> All of social science is sketchy... We could not verify the source, but people are going to believe it's true because it was in the Economist. It seems like your real beef here is with journalism (even the higher-than-average quality journalism that normally appears in the Economist). The fact that some news magazine doesn't include citations for claims in an article[1] has nothing to do with the sketchiness (or non-sketchiness) of "social science." It is too bad though that the Economist doesn't provide citations for claims like this. Did they pull "10%" out of thin air? Are 10% of new medical doctorates currently earned by Muslims? Did they include all kinds of doctorates (PhD, etc) in the calculation? A simple link to the source for this number would clear that all up... [1] http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21679823-despite-attack-san-bernardino-americas-defences-against-jihadism-are-high http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21679823-despite...

kelukelugames 11y ago
Both. Paper: "We put three women and three men in a room for 10 minutes and they brainstormed 1.3 extra ideas than a room of 6 men." Article: "Study proves gender balance leads to better meetings!"
- iak8god 11y ago
  Amusing, but I don't quite agree with this characterization of "all of social science." But here's something interesting: I've tracked down a source for the 10% claim, and it's absolutely bonkers: * An editorial[1] in the Detroit Free Press makes the following claim: | "an analysis of statistics provided by the American Medical Association indicates that 10% of all American physicians are Muslims" That certainly makes it sound like the AMA thinks that 10% of American physicians are Muslims. * The source provided for this claim, "Muslim Doctors Abundant, But Muslim Hospitals Non-Existent"[2] is a 2008 post on a site called The Muslim Link. Here's how that post arrived at the 10% claim: * 113,585 Physicians in the US (2006) * 7,000 current and retired physicians are members of the Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent of North America * 5.9% of African Americans are Muslim; 3.5% of physicians are African American; therefore there are 2000 African American Muslim physicians * 7000 + 2000 = 9000; 9000 is just about 10% of 113,585 I shit you not, that's the most straightforward reading of the analysis at [2]. Now it's in the Economist. I seriously hope they got that number somewhere else. [1] http://www.freep.com/article/20140128/OPINION05/301280121/dave-agema-racism-gay-remarks-muslim-republican-gop-michigan http://www.freep.com/article/20140128/OPINION05/301280121/da... [2] http://www.muslimlinkpaper.com/myjumla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1440 http://www.muslimlinkpaper.com/myjumla/index.php?option=com_...