3 ms·

This article is about "empirical research" which means articles with titles like "Study suggests XYZ". I avoid these type of "research" articles like plague. T

This article is about "empirical research" which means articles with titles like "Study suggests XYZ". I avoid these type of "research" articles like plague. There probably exists a "study" that proves and disproves virtually anything. For example, study suggests coffee prevents cancer and vice versa. Such pseudo (and often badly done) statistical voting type of work shouldn't even be called "research" and people doing these shouldn't be called "scientists" (the word "surveyors" seems more appropriate). There is now a cottage industry of pushing out absurd correlations that would be immediately be picked up by media because, you know, so called "scientists" did that.

ChrisSD 9y ago
While I understand your broad point, I don't think it's helpful to conflate the study itself with the media reports of said study.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
I would be interested in your point if you were revealing something concrete about the OP and their research, but you’re just making handwavy claims about broad correlations (“empirical research” = “study suggests xyz”) The fact that you’re making overly broad claims accusing people of making overly broad claims doesn’t instill confidence that you know what you’re saying. If you’re such a champion of science, why not state your claims minimally concrete terms. And ideally make falsifiable claims.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sytelus 9y ago
  OP's point is that its hard to get funds to conduct 9 studies per year with hope that 3 will result in paper as expected from the tenure track. I neither have intention to counter argument nor I have insights in to specific field that author is working on (which seems to be anthropology). My argument is exactly more broader as you have mentioned: Lot of research - at least as captured by media - involves simply doing some statistical survey and getting comfortable p-value to suggest some weird correlation. There is a lot of money spent in this type of "research" because it is expensive to conduct such studies. My objection purely on calling this "science" and calling people doing this as "scientists" because these two fairly reputable words are being used to lure general public to believe such "studies". I feel such works should be called "surveys" and people doing it should be called "surveyors". The real scientific work should involve taking the survey only as a hint and then uncover actual mechanism that falsifiably proves or disproves the correlation with hopefully more predictions. Simple surveys don't have these properties and hence such studies shouldn't be labeled as work of scientists.

ChrisSD 9y ago

While I understand your broad point, I don't think it's helpful to conflate the study itself with the media reports of said study.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

I would be interested in your point if you were revealing something concrete about the OP and their research, but you’re just making handwavy claims about broad correlations (“empirical research” = “study suggests xyz”) The fact that you’re making overly broad claims accusing people of making overly broad claims doesn’t instill confidence that you know what you’re saying. If you’re such a champion of science, why not state your claims minimally concrete terms. And ideally make falsifiable claims.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sytelus 9y ago
OP's point is that its hard to get funds to conduct 9 studies per year with hope that 3 will result in paper as expected from the tenure track. I neither have intention to counter argument nor I have insights in to specific field that author is working on (which seems to be anthropology). My argument is exactly more broader as you have mentioned: Lot of research - at least as captured by media - involves simply doing some statistical survey and getting comfortable p-value to suggest some weird correlation. There is a lot of money spent in this type of "research" because it is expensive to conduct such studies. My objection purely on calling this "science" and calling people doing this as "scientists" because these two fairly reputable words are being used to lure general public to believe such "studies". I feel such works should be called "surveys" and people doing it should be called "surveyors". The real scientific work should involve taking the survey only as a hint and then uncover actual mechanism that falsifiably proves or disproves the correlation with hopefully more predictions. Simple surveys don't have these properties and hence such studies shouldn't be labeled as work of scientists.