24 ms·
I am familiar with all of the situations you've cited, and they are nothing like this one. You're really misunderstanding Ionnandis' work if you think it is rel
by darawk 8y ago
I am familiar with all of the situations you've cited, and they are nothing like this one. You're really misunderstanding Ionnandis' work if you think it is relevant to this. He's making arguments about bad statistics, which is super important and valuable, but this has almost nothing to do with that.
Again, the Mochizuiki situation is quite different. You're really not understanding these things if you think they're comparable. Mochizuiki's work is legitimate and real and serious. Whether or not it is correct is difficult to ascertain, because of its genuine complexity.
The accusation being made here is that these fields are incapable of separating absolute nonsense from genuine content. Which means that their work is indistinguishable from nonsense and absurdity. The work that Ioannidis did demonstrates that people acting within a good framework are producing work with a higher error rate than you might expect given the claims they make. That work is extremely important. But it doesn't invalidate the field of economics, or medicine. This work attempts to invalidate the entire edifice that these disciplines are built upon. It is extremely different and not comparable at all.
- tomlock 8y agoThese disciplines aren't built on the edifice that you imagine they are. What you're doing, in examining the edification of certain disciplines, is quite postmodern. I encourage you to extend that examination to all fields.
- darawk 8y agoWhich disciplines aren't built on the edifice I imagine they are? If you're suggesting that math and physics aren't built on what I imagine them to be, then demonstrate your point.
- tomlock 8y agoAll of them. Every field is fallible, phrenology was once just science. Why would you think something like that couldn't happen again?
- darawk 8y agoYou seem to be arguing that all epistemologies are fallible and therefore they are all equivalent. This is a pretty silly line of argument. The fact that a thing is fallible does not mean that it is the equal of things that don't even bother with the truth.
- tomlock 8y agoSo, you feel like when someone says all fields are fallible and that you should examine their edification critically, that they are simultaneously making the claim that all fields are equivalent? Do you feel you are fallible in your identification of which fields are concerned with the truth and which ones aren't?
- darawk 8y agoI'm saying that you have made no argument whatsoever that math and physics are equivalently fallible to gender studies, you've merely insinuated it. If you've got an argument to make, feel free to make it. But citing the replication crisis does not cut it.
- tomlock 8y agoThings are either fallible or they aren't, and since it seems you're willing to accept that all fields are fallible "to some degree" aka are fallible, we shouldn't edify any of them uncritically. Are you saying that you can claim things can be fallible without being equivalent? Because that's what I'm saying, and I'm glad we agree. The replication crisis is a perfect example of the problem faced by all fields, of papers of questionable veracity being accepted by peer-reviewed journals. Convenient for you to say it is not up for discussion. However, I am casting a critical eye on your seemingly infallible nature, and I choose to consider it relevant.
- darawk 8y ago> The replication crisis is a perfect example of the problem faced by all fields, of papers of questionable veracity being accepted by peer-reviewed journals. You're absolutely right. Now, feel free to explain how that is relevant to THIS issue.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoIoannide's work claims that false research claims routinely makes it to publication, even in high-profile journals. Mochizuki has published a proof that many in the field believe is nonsense (unintelligible nonsense, at that). That the shoddy research investigated by Ioannidis is shoddy because it misuses statistics is besides the point. What matters is that the best efforts of peer- review in highly respected venues, in "hard" science fields fails to stop such work from being published. Which makes the hoaxed fields (gender studies etc) not particularly special in that respect. >> The accusation being made here is that these fields are incapable of separating absolute nonsense from genuine content. That's also what Ioannides research concludes, except it does so for medicine, neuroscience, etc. In Mochizuki's case, his proof was published even though experts in the field could not understand it and were not sure of its validity. It may yet prove to be nonsense, or, indeed- a hoax. >> You're really misunderstanding Ionnandis' work if you think it is relevant to this. Obviously, I believe it's you who doesn't understand what you're talking about. But perhaps we'll keep the discourse more civil by avoiding explicitly stated assumptions about each other's cognitive abilities?