3 ms·

The replication crisis is happening throughout science, including neuroscience, genetics, and oncology, to name a few: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v18/n2

by kem 10y ago

The replication crisis is happening throughout science, including neuroscience, genetics, and oncology, to name a few: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v18/n2/abs/nrn.2016.167.html http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v18/n2/abs/nrn.2016.167.ht... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02662.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_facing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tens... In fact, some analyses suggest replication might be worse in the neurosciences than in psychology. The neurosciences are plagued by many of the same conceptual ambiguities in psychology, but with even smaller, expensive studies that are underpowered with more incentives to avoid sunk cost problems. The most accurate summary is that replicability problems affect the biomedical sciences the most in general (empirically speaking, psychology tends to be classified as a biomedical science, in topic analysis studies and so forth). Follow the money. You have lots of competition for limited resources, lots of money on the line, and soft or absent tenure protections. The link you provide amounts to nothing more than ignorant intellectual bigotry and killing the messenger. It's ironically sad, in fact, because psychologists and behavioral scientists are the ones exposing the replication crisis and doing the most to try to address the problem. The type of rhetoric in the linked essay amounts to a whitewashing of replicability problems in other areas, by denying the problem exists and is only true of "lesser sciences." The sort of defensive response represented by the linked essay allows scientists in other areas to avoid accountability and the threatening implications it has for other fields. Levels of analysis problems happen in all sorts of intellectual endeavors. Arguing that psychology will give way to the neurosciences is akin to arguing that nothing in the computer sciences is a legitimate topic of study unless it involves bare metal issues. Having said that, I also distrust this paper.

lutusp 10y ago
> It's ironically sad, in fact, because psychologists and behavioral scientists are the ones exposing the replication crisis and doing the most to try to address the problem. On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem by a Nobel Prizewinner's now-famous "train wreck looming" open letter[1]. They certainly wouldn't have gone there without being pushed. > Arguing that psychology will give way to the neurosciences is akin to arguing that nothing in the computer sciences is a legitimate topic of study unless it involves bare metal issues. Yes, unless the computer science theories under study are falsifiable and based on empirical evidence, in which case they constitute science as science is defined. That's what distinguishes computer science from psychology, or, for that matter, science from psychology. > The link you provide amounts to nothing more than ignorant intellectual bigotry and killing the messenger. I include this to show the essence and basic character of your argument. 1. http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/daniel-kahneman-sees-train-wreck-looming-for-social-psychology/31338 http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/daniel-kahneman-se...
- WaxProlix 10y ago
  I hesitate to even respond to someone who's possibly just a highly energetic troll, but come on dude. The reason Kahneman wrote about psych is that it's the field he works in. He's not going to see these symptoms in ecological or environmental sciences because he doesn't read those papers, preside over those theses, vie for those grants, etc. > On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem It was raised by a professor of psychology, somebody IN THE COMMUNITY, and is being addressed, better than elsewhere. Your spin is absurd. A community takes some monumentally difficult steps to right itself in the face of bizarre pressures (mainly a broken funding model) and you take it as more evidence that they're inherently dishonest. The article you link here seems to go almost completely against your premise, by the way. If your goal is to make it obvious that some people have an absurd bias against the 'soft sciences', or to reinforce the stereotype of 'STEMlord' on HN, you're doing marvelously. Anything else and it's a flop.
bobcostas55 10y ago
I took a look at the genetics paper, and while it's true that the "candidate gene" approach led to a lot of false results, it should be noted that that paper is from 8 years ago and methodologies in genetics have changed _completely_ since then. The same can't be said for psychology.

by kem 10y ago

lutusp 10y ago

> It's ironically sad, in fact, because psychologists and behavioral scientists are the ones exposing the replication crisis and doing the most to try to address the problem. On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem by a Nobel Prizewinner's now-famous "train wreck looming" open letter[1]. They certainly wouldn't have gone there without being pushed. > Arguing that psychology will give way to the neurosciences is akin to arguing that nothing in the computer sciences is a legitimate topic of study unless it involves bare metal issues. Yes, unless the computer science theories under study are falsifiable and based on empirical evidence, in which case they constitute science as science is defined. That's what distinguishes computer science from psychology, or, for that matter, science from psychology. > The link you provide amounts to nothing more than ignorant intellectual bigotry and killing the messenger. I include this to show the essence and basic character of your argument. 1. http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/daniel-kahneman-sees-train-wreck-looming-for-social-psychology/31338 http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/daniel-kahneman-se...

WaxProlix 10y ago
I hesitate to even respond to someone who's possibly just a highly energetic troll, but come on dude. The reason Kahneman wrote about psych is that it's the field he works in. He's not going to see these symptoms in ecological or environmental sciences because he doesn't read those papers, preside over those theses, vie for those grants, etc. > On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem It was raised by a professor of psychology, somebody IN THE COMMUNITY, and is being addressed, better than elsewhere. Your spin is absurd. A community takes some monumentally difficult steps to right itself in the face of bizarre pressures (mainly a broken funding model) and you take it as more evidence that they're inherently dishonest. The article you link here seems to go almost completely against your premise, by the way. If your goal is to make it obvious that some people have an absurd bias against the 'soft sciences', or to reinforce the stereotype of 'STEMlord' on HN, you're doing marvelously. Anything else and it's a flop.

bobcostas55 10y ago

I took a look at the genetics paper, and while it's true that the "candidate gene" approach led to a lot of false results, it should be noted that that paper is from 8 years ago and methodologies in genetics have changed _completely_ since then. The same can't be said for psychology.