2 ms·
> If these are attitudes typical of psychology, then I cannot say I consider psychology to be a proper social science. In my experience, such attitudes are typ
by lutusp 10y ago
> If these are attitudes typical of psychology, then I cannot say I consider psychology to be a proper social science.
In my experience, such attitudes are typical. Here's a 2014 paper by a Harvard psychology professor who tries to argue that null replication results shouldn't be taken seriously because the failure to replicate ipso facto indicts the study's methods:
http://jasonmitchell.fas.harvard.edu/Papers/Mitchell_failed_science_2014.pdf http://jasonmitchell.fas.harvard.edu/Papers/Mitchell_failed_...
Quote: "Because experiments can be undermined by a vast number of practical mistakes, the likeliest explanation for any failed replication will always be that the replicator
bungled something along the way ... The field of social psychology can be improved, but not by the publication of negative findings."
- taneq 10y agoWow, so many responses that come to mind and they're all of the form 'un' + some swearing + 'scientific'.
- ramchip 10y ago> Someone who publishes a replication is, in effect, saying something like,“You found an effect. I did not. One of us is the inferior scientist.” Wow... I really don't see it like that.
- sqeaky 10y agoI agree with you. When Two scientists find different results only inferior scientists would take it as a personal attack. There was a story about two chemists, I might have some minor details wrong, but that shouldn't hurt this anecdote because something like this happened back when chemistry was still raw and new. The going wisdom was based on the assumption that the atoms in a molecule were the only thing that determined its properties. These two scientists were having trouble replicating each others results when working with a molecule of 2 Carbon, 2 Nitrogen, 2 Oxygen and 1 Mercury atoms. One describe it as inert and the other as explosive. Neither bothered to include synthesis steps in their papers and each thought the other was wrong. Rather than insult they swapped more and more information until eventually each confirmed that we dealing with a molecule with identical parts, but different properties. They had discovered that molecules have structure. One arrangement was Mercury Fulminate an unstable explosive used in primers and detonators today and the other was really inert and not of interest, to me at least. Any scientist who argues with the concept of "disagreement based on evidence" is arguing a foundation of science. They should be looking for evidence of reasons for that disagreement instead of quibbling over personal attacks and defense.