3 ms·

The problem is that a reproduction crisis, on its own, doesn't mean that a field is doing a bad job. With systems that involve lots of moving parts, the prior p

The problem is that a reproduction crisis, on its own, doesn't mean that a field is doing a bad job. With systems that involve lots of moving parts, the prior probability of finding a correct model is just dismally low. Bayes simply guarantees that the vast majority of our positives will be false in this case. We probably need to utilize more sophisticated statistics in this case in order to capture a more nuanced notion of a study's utility. Worse, most of the time I hear people criticize psychology, the person is implicitly using this as an excuse to not critically examine their personal beliefs about how human minds work. Paychology is hard, and we're feelinng around in tye dark, but chemistry had the same problem 300 years ago with ideas like phlogiston theory.

briantakita 8y ago
Much of the criticism relating to psychology is the difference between the expectation of the hype and the correctness & context of the models & research; such as applying the success & authority of other fields of science. What may apply in one context does not apply in another context. Fundamental matters such as qualia vs quanta also apply. For example, one person may act differently in the same situation depending on how much energy one has & what mood that person is in. In chemistry, one can create systems of limited scope (a single chemical reaction). In psychology, it's inherently more difficult to isolate variables (in some contexts it's impossible) due to the complexity of the essence of the domain & the limited information within the model definitions. The more information required of a model, the more expensive it will be to apply. Another issue is the domain language is always changing. Disorders are recategorized on a yearly basis. Some disorders also act as a catchall for symptoms which may have different causes. One can also argue that the expectations of others (e.g. the greater society) is "sick" & projects it's sickness onto individuals that do not fit it's criteria of "good" behavior. Despite the numbers, there's going to be unavoidable subjectivity & cultural/individual presuppositions in the sciences.
Spooky23 8y ago
I think the difference was that nobody was rooting for answers in chemistry. People have all sorts of reasons for getting or not getting a diagnosis.
- wgerard 8y ago
  I don’t think that’s totally true, and admittedly its somewhat arbitrary where to distinguish chemistry from medicine in this regard, but eg Humorism was a pretty popular theory until (IIRC) a chemist disproved it.
edoo 8y ago
The problem I see is pseudo science is used to build policies that are implemented via the law, aka threat of violence. You have to be very very sure of things if you are going to go down that road. I consider the incorrect application of violence to be the root of most of societies problems.

briantakita 8y ago

Much of the criticism relating to psychology is the difference between the expectation of the hype and the correctness & context of the models & research; such as applying the success & authority of other fields of science. What may apply in one context does not apply in another context. Fundamental matters such as qualia vs quanta also apply. For example, one person may act differently in the same situation depending on how much energy one has & what mood that person is in. In chemistry, one can create systems of limited scope (a single chemical reaction). In psychology, it's inherently more difficult to isolate variables (in some contexts it's impossible) due to the complexity of the essence of the domain & the limited information within the model definitions. The more information required of a model, the more expensive it will be to apply. Another issue is the domain language is always changing. Disorders are recategorized on a yearly basis. Some disorders also act as a catchall for symptoms which may have different causes. One can also argue that the expectations of others (e.g. the greater society) is "sick" & projects it's sickness onto individuals that do not fit it's criteria of "good" behavior. Despite the numbers, there's going to be unavoidable subjectivity & cultural/individual presuppositions in the sciences.

Spooky23 8y ago

I think the difference was that nobody was rooting for answers in chemistry. People have all sorts of reasons for getting or not getting a diagnosis.

wgerard 8y ago
I don’t think that’s totally true, and admittedly its somewhat arbitrary where to distinguish chemistry from medicine in this regard, but eg Humorism was a pretty popular theory until (IIRC) a chemist disproved it.

edoo 8y ago

The problem I see is pseudo science is used to build policies that are implemented via the law, aka threat of violence. You have to be very very sure of things if you are going to go down that road. I consider the incorrect application of violence to be the root of most of societies problems.