5 ms·

Not to be an ass - but I've got to ask. Does the "reproducibility crisis" have any policy or political implications for the "global warming" threat? I know noth

Not to be an ass - but I've got to ask. Does the "reproducibility crisis" have any policy or political implications for the "global warming" threat? I know nothing about climatology, and since I can't judge the "conservative" critiques of the consensus on their own merits, my tendency is to dismiss them as politically motivated and hence unreliable. As folks keep saying, "The science is settled." But if the science was settled in this instance, is it possible that my strategy for sorting through the debate - which I suspect is in fact a pretty common strategy - is in fact premature?

smithkl42 11y ago
Out of curiosity, is the downvote because of my tendency to dismiss conservative critiques? Or because I wonder if that tendency might be wrong?
habitue 11y ago
One difference here which might give you an idea of where to place your bets is that the conservative opposition to global warming is based largely on studies financed by the energy industry. The willpower research is being called into question by researchers who don't have a link to any industry with a vested interest in the outcome. Is this an airtight argument? No. There is still the possibility that global warming research has analogous methodological issues. But the conflict of interest definitely raises the burden of proof. An additional difference is that climatology research is much better founded than willpower research is. Psychology is notoriously tricky to test since you can't break apart a brain and watch all the parts interacting. Compared to psychology, the systems that climatologists study are downright simple, and we have good models of how the systems behave.
- smithkl42 11y ago
  I agree that the conflict of interest definitely raises the bar. But of course, that's what I immediately hear from my conservative friends as well: that papers which support the consensus are more likely to be published, that studies likely to confirm the consensus are more likely to be funded, and researchers who question that consensus are likely to be blackballed by their colleagues. Not being on the inside, I don't have any special insight as to whether or how strong the dynamic operates, of course. Which means that as an non-scientist, I sometimes feel like I'm in a pretty poor state to actually know what's true. Like I said, my instinct is to respect the consensus. But the evidence seems to have increased over the last decade or so that "consensus" can be a pretty poor pointer to the truth. And I want to take that evidence into account as well.
  - habitue 11y ago
    Actually, scientists have a huge incentive to overthrow an existing regime if it's bad but nobody knows it yet. It will make your career if you are able to prove it. The evidence required is high if what you're trying to disprove is well supported, but if you can provide that evidence there will be a wellspring of PhD students ready to ride that wave and build their careers. For climate deniers, the evidence just isn't there. There's no wave to ride.
- KingMob 11y ago
  Oh yes. The human brain is the most organizationally complex object in the solar system. People outside the brain sciences are bombarded with pretty photos of fMRI blobs, and don't understand how little we still understand about it.
azakai 11y ago
It's a fair question. But, no, there isn't a similar risk. Psychology is among the social sciences. That field is experiencing the reproducibility crisis, and it's been a long time coming. The subject matter is extremely difficult to study in an objective way, and the smallest of nuances can distort results (e.g. the article mentions taking a test on computer vs on paper). Also, humans aren't passive subjects, they change and react to being studied. That's just not the case in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics, etc. There isn't any similar crisis there at all. To be fair, climate science is somewhere in the middle, in that it can't be studied in the fully rigorous way that physics can, with controlled experiments. However, that middle ground contains other very solid fields of science, like evolutionary biology. Massive reproducibility crises just haven't happened in those areas. The social sciences are just different. Perhaps it's naive to think that a simple law like "ego depletion" could possibly work consistently, given how complex human beings are. That's the core issue, and climate science doesn't suffer from it.

smithkl42 11y ago

Out of curiosity, is the downvote because of my tendency to dismiss conservative critiques? Or because I wonder if that tendency might be wrong?

habitue 11y ago

One difference here which might give you an idea of where to place your bets is that the conservative opposition to global warming is based largely on studies financed by the energy industry. The willpower research is being called into question by researchers who don't have a link to any industry with a vested interest in the outcome. Is this an airtight argument? No. There is still the possibility that global warming research has analogous methodological issues. But the conflict of interest definitely raises the burden of proof. An additional difference is that climatology research is much better founded than willpower research is. Psychology is notoriously tricky to test since you can't break apart a brain and watch all the parts interacting. Compared to psychology, the systems that climatologists study are downright simple, and we have good models of how the systems behave.

smithkl42 11y ago
I agree that the conflict of interest definitely raises the bar. But of course, that's what I immediately hear from my conservative friends as well: that papers which support the consensus are more likely to be published, that studies likely to confirm the consensus are more likely to be funded, and researchers who question that consensus are likely to be blackballed by their colleagues. Not being on the inside, I don't have any special insight as to whether or how strong the dynamic operates, of course. Which means that as an non-scientist, I sometimes feel like I'm in a pretty poor state to actually know what's true. Like I said, my instinct is to respect the consensus. But the evidence seems to have increased over the last decade or so that "consensus" can be a pretty poor pointer to the truth. And I want to take that evidence into account as well.
- habitue 11y ago
  Actually, scientists have a huge incentive to overthrow an existing regime if it's bad but nobody knows it yet. It will make your career if you are able to prove it. The evidence required is high if what you're trying to disprove is well supported, but if you can provide that evidence there will be a wellspring of PhD students ready to ride that wave and build their careers. For climate deniers, the evidence just isn't there. There's no wave to ride.
KingMob 11y ago
Oh yes. The human brain is the most organizationally complex object in the solar system. People outside the brain sciences are bombarded with pretty photos of fMRI blobs, and don't understand how little we still understand about it.

azakai 11y ago

It's a fair question. But, no, there isn't a similar risk. Psychology is among the social sciences. That field is experiencing the reproducibility crisis, and it's been a long time coming. The subject matter is extremely difficult to study in an objective way, and the smallest of nuances can distort results (e.g. the article mentions taking a test on computer vs on paper). Also, humans aren't passive subjects, they change and react to being studied. That's just not the case in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics, etc. There isn't any similar crisis there at all. To be fair, climate science is somewhere in the middle, in that it can't be studied in the fully rigorous way that physics can, with controlled experiments. However, that middle ground contains other very solid fields of science, like evolutionary biology. Massive reproducibility crises just haven't happened in those areas. The social sciences are just different. Perhaps it's naive to think that a simple law like "ego depletion" could possibly work consistently, given how complex human beings are. That's the core issue, and climate science doesn't suffer from it.