4 ms·

> Is that so? So, you'd have no problem getting a nonsense paper accepted into a math, computer science, physics or even economics journal? I would be extremely

> Is that so? So, you'd have no problem getting a nonsense paper accepted into a math, computer science, physics or even economics journal? I would be extremely surprised if you could pass of work of such low quality in journals of comparable impact factor in any of these disciplines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > A 2016 study in the journal Science found that two-thirds of 18 experimental studies from two top-tier economics journals (American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics) successfully replicated. A 2017 study in the Economic Journal suggested that "the majority of the average effects in the empirical economics literature are exaggerated by a factor of at least 2 and at least one-third are exaggerated by a factor of 4 or more".

darawk 8y ago
The replication crisis is an entirely different thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
- tomlock 8y ago
  It's entirely possible to get a nonsense paper into an economics journal, even when not intentionally trying to expose the discipline as "nonsense". I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Replication crisis != nonsense papers, i'm not sure what you're not understanding here.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      I guess I'm not understanding how you can think that a paper that makes a claim about the real world, but doesn't apply to the real world, could be characterised as anything but nonsensical.
      - darawk 8y ago
        It makes an empirical claim using empirical data. Empirical data is complicated and inherently probabilistic. The fact that empirical studies sometimes conclude things that are wrong does not invalidate the notion of empirical investigation. It is an expected part of the distribution. It is also an issue that sometimes research practitioners do not follow the best practices, and this can lead to an exaggeration of false positive results beyond what you would expect from the underlying statistics. However, this also does not invalidate the idea of empirical investigation. It simply means we need to iterate on our training techniques and peer review. What this paper asserts is not that gender studies need to iterate on their techniques. It does not assert that the basic methodology of gender studies is good, but it needs some tweaks here and there. It asserts that, at a fundamental level, the concept of the field is flawed. They assert that the entire methodological framework is flawed. No one, not the authors of the replication crisis paper, or Ioannidis, nor any other serious academic asserts this about math, physics, etc...
        tomlock 8y ago
        Empirical data in individual studies are supposed to have statistical controls that mitigate incorrect conclusions, that's why p values are even a thing. To claim that on the one hand individual papers can be wrong, but the additive nature of a field somehow removes the possibility of error in the field, is misguided, to say it gently. Could it be perhaps that this individual paper, which you claim undermines the "entire methodological framework" of these fields, could be one of those individual studies that comes to incorrect conclusions, not because of any statistical flaw, but because of the inbuilt fallibility and political biases of the authors?
        darawk 8y ago
        Just pay attention to what i'm saying. I'm saying that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of physics and math is legitimate. The replication crisis et al does NOTHING to contradict that. This paper is ASSERTING that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of gender studies is flawed. You may disagree with that assertion. However, citing the replication crisis, which is a DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF ISSUE, does nothing to make your point.

darawk 8y ago

The replication crisis is an entirely different thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

tomlock 8y ago
It's entirely possible to get a nonsense paper into an economics journal, even when not intentionally trying to expose the discipline as "nonsense". I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.
- darawk 8y ago
  Replication crisis != nonsense papers, i'm not sure what you're not understanding here.
  - tomlock 8y ago
    I guess I'm not understanding how you can think that a paper that makes a claim about the real world, but doesn't apply to the real world, could be characterised as anything but nonsensical.
    - darawk 8y ago
      It makes an empirical claim using empirical data. Empirical data is complicated and inherently probabilistic. The fact that empirical studies sometimes conclude things that are wrong does not invalidate the notion of empirical investigation. It is an expected part of the distribution. It is also an issue that sometimes research practitioners do not follow the best practices, and this can lead to an exaggeration of false positive results beyond what you would expect from the underlying statistics. However, this also does not invalidate the idea of empirical investigation. It simply means we need to iterate on our training techniques and peer review. What this paper asserts is not that gender studies need to iterate on their techniques. It does not assert that the basic methodology of gender studies is good, but it needs some tweaks here and there. It asserts that, at a fundamental level, the concept of the field is flawed. They assert that the entire methodological framework is flawed. No one, not the authors of the replication crisis paper, or Ioannidis, nor any other serious academic asserts this about math, physics, etc...
      - tomlock 8y ago
        Empirical data in individual studies are supposed to have statistical controls that mitigate incorrect conclusions, that's why p values are even a thing. To claim that on the one hand individual papers can be wrong, but the additive nature of a field somehow removes the possibility of error in the field, is misguided, to say it gently. Could it be perhaps that this individual paper, which you claim undermines the "entire methodological framework" of these fields, could be one of those individual studies that comes to incorrect conclusions, not because of any statistical flaw, but because of the inbuilt fallibility and political biases of the authors?
        darawk 8y ago
        Just pay attention to what i'm saying. I'm saying that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of physics and math is legitimate. The replication crisis et al does NOTHING to contradict that. This paper is ASSERTING that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of gender studies is flawed. You may disagree with that assertion. However, citing the replication crisis, which is a DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF ISSUE, does nothing to make your point.