3 ms·

The article is dated 18 March 2019, but it asks "So: what went wrong?" and then mentions neither p-hacking nor the replication crisis in psychology. Perhaps the

The article is dated 18 March 2019, but it asks "So: what went wrong?" and then mentions neither p-hacking nor the replication crisis in psychology. Perhaps the author has a rebuttal to those who think that questionable research practices have brought about the fall of scientific authority, but he doesn't give it here. Some of the problems lie closer to home than the content of scientific journals. Henry Gee is a senior editor of Nature. He wrote an article for the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/19/science-religion-not-be-questioned https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/1... Rashly, he attempts to explain p-values, and gets it wrong, saying "For example, one might be able to accord a value to one's conclusion not of "yes" or "no" but "P<0.05", which means that the result has a less than one in 20 chance of being a fluke." Respect for scientific authority has fallen because of self-sabotage by senior figures.

mywittyname 8y ago
This has been going on since long, long before p-hacking and the replication crisis. And I honestly find these to be very different issues. It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree. Think about what's happening now with climate change. Scientists aren't undermining their own position, their authority and credibility is under direct attack; originally by moneyed interest, but today mostly through political indoctrinates. People view scientists as left-wingers out to undermine conservative policies and seek to undermine their authority and influence. Today, these people have much more reach and influence than in times past.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  > It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree. You're exaggerating. It did not take until after the year 2000 for the public to believe that smoking causes cancer.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    No I'm not... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894634/ > The public relations campaign -- which would extend for over 40 years -- was designed with the goal of reassuring the public, especially current smokers, that the question of whether smoking caused harm was an “open controversy” (1, 4, 14). > A poll conducted in 1966 found only 40% of Americans recognizing smoking as a major cause of cancer, while 27% said it was a minor cause and one-third said the science was not yet able to tell (2). In 2001 Gallup re-asked this same question and found 71% of Americans naming smoking as a major cause of cancer, with 11% saying it was a minor cause and 16% unsure (26).
    - brandonmenc 8y ago
      Wow. Yikes!
- alan-crowe 8y ago
  There is a lot of social baggage around tobacco smoking that has faded from living memory. I read about the [Torches of Freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom) advertising campaign and am amazed. Those young women, puffing their liberation in the 1930s, would turn into the old smokers of the 1970s. I guess that they would disbelieve that smoking caused lung cancer out of loyalty to the version of feminism that was current in their youth. If so, then the reluctance to accept the authority of science about tobacco is an idiosyncratic tale, specific to a powerful, pre-existing social meaning.
Camillo 8y ago
It is not acceptable to publish an article on the crisis of scientific authority in 2019 and not mention the replication crisis (which is not limited to psychology). Robert P. Crease is no Galileo, he's just a preacher for a different sort of religion. And Nature's reputation deserves to take a hit as long as it continues to keep its head in the sand like this.
- icelancer 8y ago
  Agreed. And not only is it not limited to psychology, but it spreads to areas of grave concern, like cancer research. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-high-impact-cancer-papers-shrinks-just-18 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-hi... https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibili...

mywittyname 8y ago

This has been going on since long, long before p-hacking and the replication crisis. And I honestly find these to be very different issues. It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree. Think about what's happening now with climate change. Scientists aren't undermining their own position, their authority and credibility is under direct attack; originally by moneyed interest, but today mostly through political indoctrinates. People view scientists as left-wingers out to undermine conservative policies and seek to undermine their authority and influence. Today, these people have much more reach and influence than in times past.

brandonmenc 8y ago
> It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree. You're exaggerating. It did not take until after the year 2000 for the public to believe that smoking causes cancer.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  No I'm not... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894634/ > The public relations campaign -- which would extend for over 40 years -- was designed with the goal of reassuring the public, especially current smokers, that the question of whether smoking caused harm was an “open controversy” (1, 4, 14). > A poll conducted in 1966 found only 40% of Americans recognizing smoking as a major cause of cancer, while 27% said it was a minor cause and one-third said the science was not yet able to tell (2). In 2001 Gallup re-asked this same question and found 71% of Americans naming smoking as a major cause of cancer, with 11% saying it was a minor cause and 16% unsure (26).
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    Wow. Yikes!
alan-crowe 8y ago
There is a lot of social baggage around tobacco smoking that has faded from living memory. I read about the [Torches of Freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom) advertising campaign and am amazed. Those young women, puffing their liberation in the 1930s, would turn into the old smokers of the 1970s. I guess that they would disbelieve that smoking caused lung cancer out of loyalty to the version of feminism that was current in their youth. If so, then the reluctance to accept the authority of science about tobacco is an idiosyncratic tale, specific to a powerful, pre-existing social meaning.

Camillo 8y ago

It is not acceptable to publish an article on the crisis of scientific authority in 2019 and not mention the replication crisis (which is not limited to psychology). Robert P. Crease is no Galileo, he's just a preacher for a different sort of religion. And Nature's reputation deserves to take a hit as long as it continues to keep its head in the sand like this.

icelancer 8y ago
Agreed. And not only is it not limited to psychology, but it spreads to areas of grave concern, like cancer research. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-high-impact-cancer-papers-shrinks-just-18 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-hi... https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibili...