4 ms·
Oh, free speech and criticism is okay as long as it's moderated and appropriate... Well played. The work of psychology researchers influences our LAWS. They in
by Kenji 10y ago
Oh, free speech and criticism is okay as long as it's moderated and appropriate... Well played.
The work of psychology researchers influences our LAWS. They influence how I can live my life. It's a very personal thing. I will criticise them however I want and as much as I want until this branch of 'science' has cleaned up its conduct.
If your work cannot withstand criticism, it's worthless. Get out of science, Susan T. Fiske, you give it a bad name. Or rather, what you were doing was probably never science in the first place. Your attitude fills me with disgust.
This is not a Russel's Paradox situation that can be patched up. The crisis in social 'sciences' is of such a magnitude that the only reasonable course of action is "start over" in many cases.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> The work of psychology researchers influences our LAWS. They influence how I can live my life. It's a very personal thing. While I agree with the above sentiment: > If your work cannot withstand criticism, it's worthless. Get out of science, Susan T. Fiske, you give it a bad name. I think the tone is very much incorrect. While researchers should be responsible for bad science, you may it sound like it was necessarily done with malicious intent - I think this attitude is unproductive for everyone involved.
- sbmassey 10y agoDoes the intent matter? Even if it was just a career-long run of incompetence, "getting out of science" would seem a reasonable starting point.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Pxtl 10y agoWhile I am sympathetic to people concerned with the amount of scientific trash talk online, I have to agree with the basic thesis: Evidence-based policy is important. The alternative is gut-feel based populist wingnuttery. To stand against Trumpism, evidence-based policy needs to be above reproach. The correct way to be above reproach is to be flawless, not to silence informed criticism.
- ktRolster 10y agoThis is the counter-argument to evidence-based policy: http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long The point being that not everything we know as true shows up in a study.
- Kenji 10y agoYeah, and this extends even to the purest studies of nature, like mathematics, as we know from Gödel's incompleteness theorems. It's just that e.g. whether or not the Rieman Hypothesis is true doesn't influence whether the state cracks down on a certain demographic.
- squozzer 10y agoLOL. Reminded me of a friend who skydove/skydived. He read a magazine about the sport, which had sprinkled throughout concise descriptions of skydiving accidents. They had one thing in common - cause of death:impact.