5 ms·

Academia has had their chance. No one believes "studies" about personal life choices any more if the results conflict with each other every 5 years. It's just

by c1as 8y ago

Academia has had their chance. No one believes "studies" about personal life choices any more if the results conflict with each other every 5 years. It's just publication pressure (or worse, as other commenters have hinted at).

sz4kerto 8y ago
> Academia has had their chance. You can't say that. (Ok, of course everyone has the right to her opinions.) The point of the scientific method is that it is, in many ways, self-correcting. It's getting addressed, albeit slowly. It will be counterproductive for all of us if we simply dismiss all results we're not comfortable with that it's only publication pressure. I mean -- you can say that personally, and it probably makes sense, but as a society we need to get social sciences and medicine into a better shape instead of just 'letting it go'.
- pelasaco 8y ago
  > It will be counterproductive for all of us if we simply dismiss all results we're not comfortable with that it's only publication pressure. That's not what he said. Just those which "each 5 years" have completely different results.
Ragnarork 8y ago
> Academia has had their chance Oh, so what should we go to now in order to try to expand our knowledge about this? What are you suggesting?
- Frondo 8y ago
  This is always the implicit question, and I'm guessing the answer is scientism -- material that has the form of academic product, but isn't academic. Like Jordon Peterson videos or a lot of the scientific racism stuff on Youtube. It's draped in the language of knowing, but it's purely emotional material; stuff that makes you feel good, and makes you feel smart for feeling right. (I also think the desire to drape our tribal impulses in scientific form comes from society prizing smarts for so very, very long, but that's another story.)
  - unabst 8y ago
    Jordan Peterson is as scientific as a social scientist gets. He cites papers and describes the work of past scientists and his premises are evidence driven. He is a professor; a professional academic. He has his opinions, positions and motives just like anyone else, but is open about them. If anything he is a rock star lecturer that exemplifies how informative, accurate, sincere, progressive, intimate, and inspiring science can be. He helps people for a living as a psychologist and a lecturer. If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Most that disagree with him disagree with the science, which puts them in the same boat as climate change deniers, of which there are plenty voicing their alternate facts online. But their voice doesn't validate their claims. Science is not a democracy.
    - gboudrias 8y ago
      > If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Hmmm no we can also think he uses mostly weak papers with dodgy methodologies and over-generalizes the conclusions. Not all scientists within a field agree with any given scientist of that field, that would be ludicrous.
      - unabst 8y ago
        How do you know he uses mostly weak papers? That is an overgeneralization. And why would he? Which papers should he have chosen? And I never said all scientists agree. Typical straw man. But what I will say is there are plenty of climate change deniers that claim to be scientists.
        gboudrias 8y ago
        You literally said if he offends me I have issues or don't understand him. This disregards the notion that you can understand someone as a fellow scientist and be offended by their indefensible interpretations. Sorry but it's not all black or white, and you describing the issue as such makes you more of a zealot than a scientist.
- jolopy 8y ago
  Let's try the Eleatics next, or any of the other presocratics.
- bughunter12 8y ago
  How about defunding the fields that study "personal life choices"? The quoted part seems to have been missed by the lynch mob.
RankingMember 8y ago
You're placing the blame in the wrong places, lumping in the above-board journals for the actions of those who aren't. If you want to blame someone, blame the trashier elements of our media, who jump all over the constant back and forth "studies" published in pay-to-play junk journals as if they're handed down from a great deity on stone tablets.

by c1as 8y ago

sz4kerto 8y ago

> Academia has had their chance. You can't say that. (Ok, of course everyone has the right to her opinions.) The point of the scientific method is that it is, in many ways, self-correcting. It's getting addressed, albeit slowly. It will be counterproductive for all of us if we simply dismiss all results we're not comfortable with that it's only publication pressure. I mean -- you can say that personally, and it probably makes sense, but as a society we need to get social sciences and medicine into a better shape instead of just 'letting it go'.

pelasaco 8y ago
> It will be counterproductive for all of us if we simply dismiss all results we're not comfortable with that it's only publication pressure. That's not what he said. Just those which "each 5 years" have completely different results.

Ragnarork 8y ago

> Academia has had their chance Oh, so what should we go to now in order to try to expand our knowledge about this? What are you suggesting?

Frondo 8y ago
This is always the implicit question, and I'm guessing the answer is scientism -- material that has the form of academic product, but isn't academic. Like Jordon Peterson videos or a lot of the scientific racism stuff on Youtube. It's draped in the language of knowing, but it's purely emotional material; stuff that makes you feel good, and makes you feel smart for feeling right. (I also think the desire to drape our tribal impulses in scientific form comes from society prizing smarts for so very, very long, but that's another story.)
- unabst 8y ago
  Jordan Peterson is as scientific as a social scientist gets. He cites papers and describes the work of past scientists and his premises are evidence driven. He is a professor; a professional academic. He has his opinions, positions and motives just like anyone else, but is open about them. If anything he is a rock star lecturer that exemplifies how informative, accurate, sincere, progressive, intimate, and inspiring science can be. He helps people for a living as a psychologist and a lecturer. If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Most that disagree with him disagree with the science, which puts them in the same boat as climate change deniers, of which there are plenty voicing their alternate facts online. But their voice doesn't validate their claims. Science is not a democracy.
  - gboudrias 8y ago
    > If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Hmmm no we can also think he uses mostly weak papers with dodgy methodologies and over-generalizes the conclusions. Not all scientists within a field agree with any given scientist of that field, that would be ludicrous.
    - unabst 8y ago
      How do you know he uses mostly weak papers? That is an overgeneralization. And why would he? Which papers should he have chosen? And I never said all scientists agree. Typical straw man. But what I will say is there are plenty of climate change deniers that claim to be scientists.
      - gboudrias 8y ago
        You literally said if he offends me I have issues or don't understand him. This disregards the notion that you can understand someone as a fellow scientist and be offended by their indefensible interpretations. Sorry but it's not all black or white, and you describing the issue as such makes you more of a zealot than a scientist.
jolopy 8y ago
Let's try the Eleatics next, or any of the other presocratics.
bughunter12 8y ago
How about defunding the fields that study "personal life choices"? The quoted part seems to have been missed by the lynch mob.

RankingMember 8y ago

You're placing the blame in the wrong places, lumping in the above-board journals for the actions of those who aren't. If you want to blame someone, blame the trashier elements of our media, who jump all over the constant back and forth "studies" published in pay-to-play junk journals as if they're handed down from a great deity on stone tablets.