4 ms·
These kind of studies tend to be riddled with methological errors. For instance, one of them found (as usual) that autumn-borns had lower grades than spring-bor
by rlkf 10y ago
These kind of studies tend to be riddled with methological errors. For instance, one of them found (as usual) that autumn-borns had lower grades than spring-borns. However, once adjusting for the parent's education level, the results were opposite.
- M_Grey 10y agoThis is for me, the big issue and the reason why these kinds of studies have begun to just fly under my radar. When a couple of decades of "research" in various fields adds up to, "Flip a coin, any coin..." something is off. Mind you, any attempt to bring this up to people involved is met with more than just hostility, and usually a mixture of exasperated condescension and and accusations of unfair standards. If you press, it usually comes down to, "Doing the best we can," which is nice for gymnastics, but less so for published research.
- prolly_a_moron 10y ago>If you press, it usually comes down to, "Doing the best we can," which is nice for gymnastics, but less so for published research. If "doing the best we can" is too low of a standard for research, then it's all garbage. Yes, there are many problems with some of the research out there, but you deal with it, not ignore it all. The purpose is to reduce uncertainty, not "get the right answer".
- M_Grey 10y agoYou're absolutely preaching to the choir here, but I don't know how to communicate that sentiment to people for whom it isn't gospel, without them getting really huffy about it. Being gentle doesn't help, they're too defensive most of the time.
- im3w1l 10y agoDoing-the-best-we-can science is valuable. But we should be careful about turning it into policy. I'd rather stick with tradition than very uncertain science.
- M_Grey 10y agoWho suggested anything about turning this into more than a personal policy? Edit: Not to mention that if you want to publish "tradition", don't call it "science".