5 ms·

You're making a lot of wild claims. >Even in many "scientific" fields, standards are so low that most published research is wrong. Citation needed. >And in m

You're making a lot of wild claims. >Even in many "scientific" fields, standards are so low that most published research is wrong. Citation needed. >And in much of academia, evidence is less important than ideology Citation needed. >research and researchers are banned not because they are wrong, but because their ideas are unacceptable. Citation needed. Maybe it has happened to a couple of people at a few screwed up universities, but you're implying this is common. EDIT: I predict you're going to use the exact methods described in the article to "win" the argument.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
titanix2 8y ago
You can do your own research about that by yourself if you have a real interest in the topic. Anyway, here is a book about this issue in sociology (written by two researchers of the field): Gérald Bronner et Étienne Géhin (2017), Le Danger sociologique, Paris, Puf, 252 p.
- ben_w 8y ago
  By “do your own research”, do you mean “repeat a statistically significant number of the various studies to find out how repeatable the results are”, or do you mean “read a book which convinced me”?
  - menckenjr 8y ago
    There's a third option - "do a meta-analysis of representative studies to determine true effect size".
    - ben_w 8y ago
      I counted that as “repeat”, given that’s part of how this problem was first discovered. On reflection though, that only works when you know roughly how many negative results get published: part of the problem with unreproducable results is that negatives have been difficult to publish, biasing publications so that entirely competent and honest mistakes are much more common than one would expect from just the p-value.
- luc4sdreyer 8y ago
  I have done some research, and it sounded like you're overstating or making false claims, so I'll called you on it. "Do your own research" is just another easy way to dismiss criticism. I can't prove that no researcher has ever been banned on ideological grounds. You made the claim that this is the norm, I don't think it is, so I simply asked for a reference. Thanks for providing the above citations though. I've indexed the statements I have a problem with, because you seemed to have missed the last and most egregious one. 1. Even in many "scientific" fields, standards are so low that most published research is wrong. This claim seems to be supported by evidence. I think it's important to add that while we should encourage higher standards and alternatives to p-values, replication is a critical part of the scientific process. Biases will inevitably creep into study design and analysis. This implies that even with extremely high standards, a significant portion of studies (hopefully not the majority) will still fail replication, because it was conducted by humans. Psychology studies are notorious for this. I don't think they represent the majority though. I could point to particle physics that have a convention of five-sigma (99.99994% confidence). Let's not resort to cherry-picking. 2. And in much of academia, evidence is less important than ideology 3. research and researchers are banned not because they are wrong, but because their ideas are unacceptable. I didn't see any citations backing these claims. In your added citations you point to a correlation between conservatism and academia. Implying that the difference is because conservatives are forced out of academia is jumping the gun. I have an alternatives theory: people that think science is important don't want to associate themselves with group that are considered anti-scientific (public perception is key here). There is no place for _any_ ideology in science anyway. > In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf This is flawed, they did give participants the option to abstain from picking a side. "Moderate" is also a position. Many of these references focus on social sciences. Do you that is representative of all the sciences?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

titanix2 8y ago

You can do your own research about that by yourself if you have a real interest in the topic. Anyway, here is a book about this issue in sociology (written by two researchers of the field): Gérald Bronner et Étienne Géhin (2017), Le Danger sociologique, Paris, Puf, 252 p.

ben_w 8y ago
By “do your own research”, do you mean “repeat a statistically significant number of the various studies to find out how repeatable the results are”, or do you mean “read a book which convinced me”?
- menckenjr 8y ago
  There's a third option - "do a meta-analysis of representative studies to determine true effect size".
  - ben_w 8y ago
    I counted that as “repeat”, given that’s part of how this problem was first discovered. On reflection though, that only works when you know roughly how many negative results get published: part of the problem with unreproducable results is that negatives have been difficult to publish, biasing publications so that entirely competent and honest mistakes are much more common than one would expect from just the p-value.
luc4sdreyer 8y ago
I have done some research, and it sounded like you're overstating or making false claims, so I'll called you on it. "Do your own research" is just another easy way to dismiss criticism. I can't prove that no researcher has ever been banned on ideological grounds. You made the claim that this is the norm, I don't think it is, so I simply asked for a reference. Thanks for providing the above citations though. I've indexed the statements I have a problem with, because you seemed to have missed the last and most egregious one. 1. Even in many "scientific" fields, standards are so low that most published research is wrong. This claim seems to be supported by evidence. I think it's important to add that while we should encourage higher standards and alternatives to p-values, replication is a critical part of the scientific process. Biases will inevitably creep into study design and analysis. This implies that even with extremely high standards, a significant portion of studies (hopefully not the majority) will still fail replication, because it was conducted by humans. Psychology studies are notorious for this. I don't think they represent the majority though. I could point to particle physics that have a convention of five-sigma (99.99994% confidence). Let's not resort to cherry-picking. 2. And in much of academia, evidence is less important than ideology 3. research and researchers are banned not because they are wrong, but because their ideas are unacceptable. I didn't see any citations backing these claims. In your added citations you point to a correlation between conservatism and academia. Implying that the difference is because conservatives are forced out of academia is jumping the gun. I have an alternatives theory: people that think science is important don't want to associate themselves with group that are considered anti-scientific (public perception is key here). There is no place for _any_ ideology in science anyway. > In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf This is flawed, they did give participants the option to abstain from picking a side. "Moderate" is also a position. Many of these references focus on social sciences. Do you that is representative of all the sciences?