3 ms·

Its not repetition for its own sake. Its for the sake of good science. I find many who are against repetition have certain views that are helped by soft scienc

Its not repetition for its own sake. Its for the sake of good science. I find many who are against repetition have certain views that are helped by soft science.

throwaway729 10y ago
I suppose I should remind you, then, that the up-thread comment we're responding to was written in the context of a physics experiment. And I'm about as far from "soft sciences" as you can get.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Oh I was not commenting on what you do. I was commenting that many who hold that view of non repetition have leanings that are favored by soft sciences. They dont feel the "need" for repetition even in hard science. It is a personal bias thing that influences their need. It can happen when emotion overcomes hard logic and science.
  - austinjp 10y ago
    > many who hold that view of non repetition have leanings that are favored by soft sciences. They dont feel the "need" for repetition even in hard science. Really? You're suggesting that psychologists (to arbitrarily pick a softer science) would deny physicists (to arbitrarily pick a harder science) should reproduce their studies where possible? That seems remarkable to me, perhaps I've missed these discussions. Can you provide evidence that this is a pervasive movement in some sciences, rather than the opinion of a few? "Many" is a trigger weasel word, of course, and needs backing up. My interpretation -- perhaps incorrect -- is that you feel the softer sciences are wilfully undermining the quality of harder sciences. I very much doubt this is the case. Some philosophers of science and some softer science key influencers may introduce difficult and challenging questions about the appropriateness and usefulness of some research methodologies (as are people in this thread) but I doubt they'd make the blanket assertion you're suggesting.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      You're clearly reading far too much into the parent. Do you have an emotional attachment to "soft" sciences that is causing you to be defensive in the face of no attack at all?
      - james0001 10y ago
        Project much? Looks like you're the one getting all heated and angry at someone defending the social sciences and are trying to attack them. It's better not to bring emotion into discussions of science.

Its not repetition for its own sake. Its for the sake of good science. I find many who are against repetition have certain views that are helped by soft science.

throwaway729 10y ago

I suppose I should remind you, then, that the up-thread comment we're responding to was written in the context of a physics experiment. And I'm about as far from "soft sciences" as you can get.

Mendenhall 10y ago
Oh I was not commenting on what you do. I was commenting that many who hold that view of non repetition have leanings that are favored by soft sciences. They dont feel the "need" for repetition even in hard science. It is a personal bias thing that influences their need. It can happen when emotion overcomes hard logic and science.
- austinjp 10y ago
  > many who hold that view of non repetition have leanings that are favored by soft sciences. They dont feel the "need" for repetition even in hard science. Really? You're suggesting that psychologists (to arbitrarily pick a softer science) would deny physicists (to arbitrarily pick a harder science) should reproduce their studies where possible? That seems remarkable to me, perhaps I've missed these discussions. Can you provide evidence that this is a pervasive movement in some sciences, rather than the opinion of a few? "Many" is a trigger weasel word, of course, and needs backing up. My interpretation -- perhaps incorrect -- is that you feel the softer sciences are wilfully undermining the quality of harder sciences. I very much doubt this is the case. Some philosophers of science and some softer science key influencers may introduce difficult and challenging questions about the appropriateness and usefulness of some research methodologies (as are people in this thread) but I doubt they'd make the blanket assertion you're suggesting.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    You're clearly reading far too much into the parent. Do you have an emotional attachment to "soft" sciences that is causing you to be defensive in the face of no attack at all?
    - james0001 10y ago
      Project much? Looks like you're the one getting all heated and angry at someone defending the social sciences and are trying to attack them. It's better not to bring emotion into discussions of science.