3 ms·

If you believe this is "science", then we're on a different page. For the record I do believe in science. It's just that there are some types of research that

If you believe this is "science", then we're on a different page. For the record I do believe in science. It's just that there are some types of research that use non objective and unproven measures to convey a message they wanted to prove from the beginning. This becomes more serious in the field of "social science" because by default "social" is very difficult to come up with an objective hypothesis with. There are many that do a good job of trying to stay as objective as possible, and there are those who actually started out wanting to prove a subjective agenda. I think this particular research is the latter. Here are a couple of things I dislike about this research: 1. They used IQ as a measure. I won't go into details because this opens its own whole can of worms, but the gist is, trying to prove your theory using another meta measure that has not been proven to be reliable (and many agree that it is also determined by educational background, which is the very thing the authors are trying to prove, resulting in circular logic) 2. They didn't prove anything new. Instead all they did was make an obvious fact much more focused (using the "inventor" qualifier) so that it can be used by lobbyists. Everybody knows if you have better education you have more likelihood of success. Did you not know that? If you did, what does this research add to your knowledge other than as just another source of "research says" recitation some Buzzfeed article can use to generate their page views? Making an already known fact more concrete is a recipe for propaganda. Therefore I see this research as nothing more than a marketing campaign. 3. I do not trust any research results that present themselves as cause-and-effect when all they are is just a correlation. This is really misleading and in fact do exist in numerous "research" results sponsored by cigarette companies and fast food companies that try to use "research" as propaganda that unhealthy is OK because "research said so".

eksemplar 9y ago
> It's just that there are some types of research that use non objective and unproven measures to convey a message they wanted to prove from the beginning. This becomes more serious in the field of "social science" because by default "social" is very difficult to come up with an objective hypothesis with. There are many that do a good job of trying to stay as objective as possible, and there are those who actually started out wanting to prove a subjective agenda. I think this particular research is the latter. I'm sorry but everything you say in this paragraph is objectively wrong and indicate that you don't really understand how science works. There are different approaches to empirical evidence, but none of them can be written off as less serious or reliable than others. They are different tools for different jobs. You mention "social sciences" as a bad thing, but interestingly enough this article didn't gather it's evidence through hermeneutics or constructivism (two approaches I'll assume you dislike), but rather realism (what you'd probably consider "sciency" science). > I do not trust any research results that present themselves as cause-and-effect when all they are is just a correlation. This is really misleading and in fact do exist in numerous "research" results sponsored by cigarette companies and fast food companies that try to use "research" as propaganda that unhealthy is OK because "research said so". Except the research isn't presented in this way. It's tested, it's peer-reviewed and the article itself tells you which problems there is with their approach showing you that the people who wrote it, actually thought about the weaknesses in their statement. Ironically your approach to science seem to be what you despise about what you call "social science". You disregard evidence because it "feels" wrong to you, and because it's "presented" in a way you don't like.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  > You mention "social sciences" as a bad thing, Where did I say that? I said "you can't get away from social agenda when it comes to social science research, but all the real valuable social science research results come from genuine curiosity whereas a lot of bad research results come from a clear goal to convey their existing message" > You disregard evidence because it "feels" wrong to you Yes you got it exactly right. It feels wrong to me. And it's presented in a way that I don't like. That's it. I don't care how many peer reviews it received. This research WILL be used by lobbyists and viral media to get traffic to their websites, and the authors know it. I didn't say this was not science. But it's science optimized for fulfilling an agenda. You talk like you know EXACTLY what science is, but at the end of the day the term "science" is a word humans invented. Which means people will have different interpretations. We can't really reach an agreement here just like how people from different religion can't come to an agreement about their Gods. So don't try to feed me your version of science and tell me that's the "real" science. My only point was that I do not like what this piece of "science research" will be used for. You can argue with me on that point if you really think there is no agenda behind this research. Because that's the only point I'm trying to make.
  - eksemplar 9y ago
    > Yes you got it exactly right. It feels wrong to me. Well, then I don't think I'll waste more time on you.

eksemplar 9y ago

> It's just that there are some types of research that use non objective and unproven measures to convey a message they wanted to prove from the beginning. This becomes more serious in the field of "social science" because by default "social" is very difficult to come up with an objective hypothesis with. There are many that do a good job of trying to stay as objective as possible, and there are those who actually started out wanting to prove a subjective agenda. I think this particular research is the latter. I'm sorry but everything you say in this paragraph is objectively wrong and indicate that you don't really understand how science works. There are different approaches to empirical evidence, but none of them can be written off as less serious or reliable than others. They are different tools for different jobs. You mention "social sciences" as a bad thing, but interestingly enough this article didn't gather it's evidence through hermeneutics or constructivism (two approaches I'll assume you dislike), but rather realism (what you'd probably consider "sciency" science). > I do not trust any research results that present themselves as cause-and-effect when all they are is just a correlation. This is really misleading and in fact do exist in numerous "research" results sponsored by cigarette companies and fast food companies that try to use "research" as propaganda that unhealthy is OK because "research said so". Except the research isn't presented in this way. It's tested, it's peer-reviewed and the article itself tells you which problems there is with their approach showing you that the people who wrote it, actually thought about the weaknesses in their statement. Ironically your approach to science seem to be what you despise about what you call "social science". You disregard evidence because it "feels" wrong to you, and because it's "presented" in a way you don't like.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
> You mention "social sciences" as a bad thing, Where did I say that? I said "you can't get away from social agenda when it comes to social science research, but all the real valuable social science research results come from genuine curiosity whereas a lot of bad research results come from a clear goal to convey their existing message" > You disregard evidence because it "feels" wrong to you Yes you got it exactly right. It feels wrong to me. And it's presented in a way that I don't like. That's it. I don't care how many peer reviews it received. This research WILL be used by lobbyists and viral media to get traffic to their websites, and the authors know it. I didn't say this was not science. But it's science optimized for fulfilling an agenda. You talk like you know EXACTLY what science is, but at the end of the day the term "science" is a word humans invented. Which means people will have different interpretations. We can't really reach an agreement here just like how people from different religion can't come to an agreement about their Gods. So don't try to feed me your version of science and tell me that's the "real" science. My only point was that I do not like what this piece of "science research" will be used for. You can argue with me on that point if you really think there is no agenda behind this research. Because that's the only point I'm trying to make.
- eksemplar 9y ago
  > Yes you got it exactly right. It feels wrong to me. Well, then I don't think I'll waste more time on you.