3 ms·

>OSC researchers tried to reproduce an American study that dealt with Stanford University students’ attitudes toward affirmative action policies by using Dutch

>OSC researchers tried to reproduce an American study that dealt with Stanford University students’ attitudes toward affirmative action policies by using Dutch students at the University of Amsterdam. If they do conclude things on "students" based on this study, then reproducing it on Dutch students is perfectly fine. If they did conclude something on "Stanford University students", then it is a bad reproduction. You see, there's a very good justification there, that you can interpret as subtyping, or the liskov substitution principle. >'low reproducability' != 'unethical' This is akin to saying "ok there's this theorem, but I won't give proof, just a bogus heuristic argument", or even worse, saying "that person is guilty but I won't justify why". Both these behaviors are unacceptable. Why would "social sciences" be above that? > or 'crisis' A field is filled of politically oriented baseless claims, but this is not a crisis, just another day in Oceania. That said, if the meta-study was sloppy, then it still justifies that research standards should have been upped a while ago; the "terrible"" meta-study was accepted precisely because terrible papers are accepted in the first place.

vacri 11y ago
> If they do conclude things on "students" based on this study, then reproducing it on Dutch students is perfectly fine. No. Just fucking 'no'. It was a study on affirmative action policies, repeated in a distant country with different public opinions on welfare and social fairness. If you think that that's fine, then you really have no claim to be declaring what psychology should and shouldn't be. > filled of politically oriented baseless claims Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it.
- mystikal 11y ago
  His point was about whether the term "students" is qualified.
  - vacri 11y ago
    If that's the reason for including the study, then it was a bad study to choose to replicate, as it would be clearly not replicable for students of other cultures - in which case, the meta-study researchers are stacking the deck; they would be guilty of the very thing they're decrying.
- logicrook 11y ago
  So you say 'no' but you don't refute the argument? Can you explain why following correct substitution principles does not work? You could also try to answer to the arguments of harry8, who gave you polite and well-written points, that you consciously ignored and resorted to name-calling ("you're heavily clueless about what psychology is") when you have absolutely no element to back your claim. >Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it. What I mean by filled is that this subsection (which exists in any field, even mathematics) is an important fraction of this particular field. And before you bring this up: I read a lot of important papers in the field, and they were all below my expectations, which were admittedly not very high. I came to think that the "journal of irreproducible results" is one the most serious publications in soft sciences. >Apparently arguments become stronger when you add "fuck" qualifiers Fuck me!

vacri 11y ago

> If they do conclude things on "students" based on this study, then reproducing it on Dutch students is perfectly fine. No. Just fucking 'no'. It was a study on affirmative action policies, repeated in a distant country with different public opinions on welfare and social fairness. If you think that that's fine, then you really have no claim to be declaring what psychology should and shouldn't be. > filled of politically oriented baseless claims Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it.

mystikal 11y ago
His point was about whether the term "students" is qualified.
- vacri 11y ago
  If that's the reason for including the study, then it was a bad study to choose to replicate, as it would be clearly not replicable for students of other cultures - in which case, the meta-study researchers are stacking the deck; they would be guilty of the very thing they're decrying.
logicrook 11y ago
So you say 'no' but you don't refute the argument? Can you explain why following correct substitution principles does not work? You could also try to answer to the arguments of harry8, who gave you polite and well-written points, that you consciously ignored and resorted to name-calling ("you're heavily clueless about what psychology is") when you have absolutely no element to back your claim. >Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it. What I mean by filled is that this subsection (which exists in any field, even mathematics) is an important fraction of this particular field. And before you bring this up: I read a lot of important papers in the field, and they were all below my expectations, which were admittedly not very high. I came to think that the "journal of irreproducible results" is one the most serious publications in soft sciences. >Apparently arguments become stronger when you add "fuck" qualifiers Fuck me!