3 ms·

It might not seem as clear cut as other natural sciences (which also get fuzzy once you go into the details) but there is credibility in psychological reasoning

by z55 9y ago

It might not seem as clear cut as other natural sciences (which also get fuzzy once you go into the details) but there is credibility in psychological reasoning. The mechanisms that cause a certain behavior are represented as models in psychological research. Such models must, by design, simplify the real mechanisms. But, as opposed to the real mechanism, they can be discussed and disproven, which is what apparently happened here.

colemannugent 9y ago
>It might not seem as clear cut as other natural sciences (which also get fuzzy once you go into the details) but there is credibility in psychological reasoning. Any "fuzziness" in the other natural sciences (thinking biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.) is usually limited by current technology or measurement methods. Newton's classical mechanics were observably true for a long time before their flaws started showing. In most situations, classical mechanics is all you need to accurately model a system. Is there any such well accepted theory that semi-accurately predicts psychological phenomena in a similar fashion? I agree that sometimes psychological findings seem credible because they align with our personal models of how we think people work, but this gives you nothing in terms of the scientific method. Just because a model is intuitive doesn't mean that it is any more true. >Such models must, by design, simplify the real mechanisms. What model? They essentially have a single claim backed by evidence. I don't see what predictive power their conclusion brings. We don't understand what "ego-depletion" is, how can we pretend to measure it? How can this "measurement" of something that we don't understand give us any more information about human psychology? What real mechanism have they suggested as an explanation for this phenomenon? I didn't see one.
Retric 9y ago
When papers drop below the 50/50 threshold and are more likely to be false then true, the entire discipline becomes worthless.

by z55 9y ago

colemannugent 9y ago

>It might not seem as clear cut as other natural sciences (which also get fuzzy once you go into the details) but there is credibility in psychological reasoning. Any "fuzziness" in the other natural sciences (thinking biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.) is usually limited by current technology or measurement methods. Newton's classical mechanics were observably true for a long time before their flaws started showing. In most situations, classical mechanics is all you need to accurately model a system. Is there any such well accepted theory that semi-accurately predicts psychological phenomena in a similar fashion? I agree that sometimes psychological findings seem credible because they align with our personal models of how we think people work, but this gives you nothing in terms of the scientific method. Just because a model is intuitive doesn't mean that it is any more true. >Such models must, by design, simplify the real mechanisms. What model? They essentially have a single claim backed by evidence. I don't see what predictive power their conclusion brings. We don't understand what "ego-depletion" is, how can we pretend to measure it? How can this "measurement" of something that we don't understand give us any more information about human psychology? What real mechanism have they suggested as an explanation for this phenomenon? I didn't see one.

Retric 9y ago

When papers drop below the 50/50 threshold and are more likely to be false then true, the entire discipline becomes worthless.