5 ms·

> These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck so

> These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science. Because social scientists continue to make giant claims that fail to be supported by the evidence, and those claims are used to enact sweeping policies based on quackery. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-pr... Stereotype Threat. The Implicit Association Test. The Bystander Effect. Power Posing. These are examples of "science" that is based more on rhetoric and emotion than reality. But it is having real effects on policy. If your claims are made up and based on shoddy principles, they deserve scrutiny. > objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. This article is literally trying to build a case of "feels" over "reals". Transparent objective facts should guide the debate, not twisted political rhetoric masquerading as "science". If your position is incorrect and does not match reality, it must be dropped, even if you would prefer it to be true to push a point. I can't believe this kind of garbage is coming out of 538

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwawayjava 9y ago
You fundamentally mischaracterize the article's central thesis; you're attacking a straw-man. The article goes on, immediately following your quoted sentence, to draw an important distinction: > But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. > What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. And goes on to discuss how the term "sound science" was invented (or at least popularized) as FUD by Phillip Morris to discredit medical science on the health effects of second-hand smoke.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  > undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. Scientific discoveries aren't scientific or "discoveries" if they don't reflect reality. If you can't defend the fact that your results don't replicate, or that your methodology is flawed, or your math is wrong, then you can't continue to promote your "discoveries" as if they are true.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Again, you completely miss the point of the article. The article is not about Science! The article is about public perception of science. About how very valid criticism of bad science can be used to paint with an overly broad brush, and about how that rhetorical trick works well when convincing voters and/or policymakers to ignore good science. BTW, the piece quotes Steven Goodman -- one of the "good guys" leading the charge against unproducible social science -- making exactly this point. No one is making the case for letting bad science slide, least of all Steven Goodman. The things you are saying are true. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the article that they're attached to.
    - ghostcluster 9y ago
      There is a whole paragraph from someone who "who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies" > These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. This is pushing the idea that the facts don't matter. What matters is "values" and emotions. It's an elaborate setup to push a view from certain segments of the humanities and social sciences to dismiss the epistemology of science and an "objective reality" entirely.
      - 9y ago
foolrush 9y ago
There are now a hundred years of research regarding the social sciences and humanities. Your scare quotes betray your knowledge on the matter. Perhaps you should research equal "science" claims such as the anchoring effect or such? Illusiory superiority? The nonlinear social / contextual matters make the social sciences extremely complex.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

throwawayjava 9y ago

You fundamentally mischaracterize the article's central thesis; you're attacking a straw-man. The article goes on, immediately following your quoted sentence, to draw an important distinction: > But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. > What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. And goes on to discuss how the term "sound science" was invented (or at least popularized) as FUD by Phillip Morris to discredit medical science on the health effects of second-hand smoke.

ghostcluster 9y ago
> undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. Scientific discoveries aren't scientific or "discoveries" if they don't reflect reality. If you can't defend the fact that your results don't replicate, or that your methodology is flawed, or your math is wrong, then you can't continue to promote your "discoveries" as if they are true.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Again, you completely miss the point of the article. The article is not about Science! The article is about public perception of science. About how very valid criticism of bad science can be used to paint with an overly broad brush, and about how that rhetorical trick works well when convincing voters and/or policymakers to ignore good science. BTW, the piece quotes Steven Goodman -- one of the "good guys" leading the charge against unproducible social science -- making exactly this point. No one is making the case for letting bad science slide, least of all Steven Goodman. The things you are saying are true. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the article that they're attached to.
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    There is a whole paragraph from someone who "who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies" > These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. This is pushing the idea that the facts don't matter. What matters is "values" and emotions. It's an elaborate setup to push a view from certain segments of the humanities and social sciences to dismiss the epistemology of science and an "objective reality" entirely.
    - 9y ago

foolrush 9y ago

There are now a hundred years of research regarding the social sciences and humanities. Your scare quotes betray your knowledge on the matter. Perhaps you should research equal "science" claims such as the anchoring effect or such? Illusiory superiority? The nonlinear social / contextual matters make the social sciences extremely complex.