4 ms·

I don't think the real problem here is even this example of pro gender bias. For me it is really the sham social sciences are, and always have been. A big amou

by wtdata 7y ago

I don't think the real problem here is even this example of pro gender bias. For me it is really the sham social sciences are, and always have been. A big amount of their publication either follows political bias or, the academic bias of the moment and this happens all because they aren't really sciences. They don't follow the scientific method, they lack a criteria of refutability. You can say whatever it is fancy at the moment, and if some other study comes to contradict it, it doesn't matter. In the end, I think, they are lengthy at fault for today's public opinion lack of trust in science. Anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, and less extreme examples, are enabled by the media presenting social science's findings as scientific when in fact they are clearly not scientific in nature. And with that, we end up taking credibility away from real sciences. Every time we see the word "science" associated with this kind of practices, the word "science" looses meaning for the ones that can't understand the clear methodological difference between sociology and biology for instance.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
You're right. On the other hand, I respect the efforts of those who try to make a difference (for example by taking the effort to replicate prominent studies in psychology). Sociology and economics are different beasts altogether. By definition, you can't conduct any meaningul controlled study, so using the name of "science" is a bit of a stretch. Nevertheless, you can't deny that certain "laws", however fuzzy they be, do exist in these fields, and studying them can be very useful, no matter if we call these science or not.
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Strong words and big generalisations, but let's assume you know what you're talking about. Take the social science I studied, linguistics. How does it lack falsifiability? Theories of how languages evolved can be disproven by contradictory evidence in the same way theories would be in any scientific discipline. For example, we know English and German ultimately have a common ancestor, because we can see the similarities between their modern and older forms and explain them in terms of consistent sound changes, and we can systematically explain the differences between the older forms of the two languages such that we can reconstruct what we think is their precursor, and then show in the same fashion that they are related to other European languages. Now, if you believe English and German are in fact descended from ancient Chinese, you can falsify the current theory by showing how they could have evolved, but you can't, because any similarities are superficial and can't be explained systematically. Or did you mean only social sciences that you don't like? Which ones?
- wtdata 7y ago
  Sure, I can give you a good example about linguistics. Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar [1] in linguistics which is the de facto accepted theory, although there is data from other researchers like Dan Everett that totally disprove the Chomsky’s theory with at least one concrete example. [2] That is exactly the issue I am talking about. You have your in vogue theory in that field and everyone in the academia loves it, and when someone brings you concrete evidence of one of more cases where the theory clearly doesn't apply, what do linguistics do? They dismiss all evidence and carry on just using the theory that is popular. Can you just wonder what would happen in a real field of science if someone brought forward evidence that the de facto theory clearly doesn't apply in one measurement that was made and you couldn't find anything wrong with that observation or measurement? Can you even imagine if someone came forward with a clear case where the velocity of light in vacuum was surpassed by something else? Or if someone was able to measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle? Or if someone found that the environment affects the genes of a living being in order for it to adapt? Or if someone found evidence of fossils much older than we though life in Earth to be? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    Like in any other field, initial theories can be flawed and it takes time to find convincing replacements. It's true that it's imperfect, but I think you have a blind spot for the same failings in other sciences.
    - buboard 7y ago
      One thing though is that a large body of research followed on the same path semi-blindly. Too much trust was placed on Chomsky's (brilliant on publication, but that was 70 years ago!) ideas that the brain might contain machinery for universal grammars. Other fields differ markedly on level of skepticism. That said, linguistics is not a science that is commonly referenced in politics, nor the exemplary "social science". It's arguably closer to hard sciences like mathematics. The science that are trusted when making public policy decisions are usually social/political science, psychology, economics et al.
danieltillett 7y ago
It is much easier to pretend to do science than actually do science. When the system rewards imitation science as highly as real science then you can expect that you will get a lot of lookalike science. Why work hard collecting data from 1000 people and finding nothing exciting, when collecting data from 50 is accceptable with the added kicker that chance alone might throw up something supporting the politics of your peers.
- swebs 7y ago
  There's actually a term for this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  I have recently seen a hard uptick of social "science" papers with a N=1, where said N is the author describing their personal experience, i.e. biased and highly subjective anecdotes. Mind you, otherwise these papers look very "sciency", with tons of citations and footnotes sprinkled in, and quite often with grant disclosures at the end. At least, this is my N=1 experience ;)
swebs 7y ago
Since it's trendy to recommend related books on HN, I'd nominate "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" by none other than Alan Sokal. It's a fascinating read and just as valid today as it was 20 years ago when it was published, which is actually a bit depressing in my opinion.
- carlob 7y ago
  I read that book (FWIW you should also mention the other author: Bricmont). While I agree it's very interesting I don't think it applies that much to the type of studies in this report. As far as I can recall it seems to focus mostly on history and philosophy of sciences, literary criticism and cultural studies.
raxxorrax 7y ago
The greater scam is that the findings are used to justify real discrimination. Without any basis to it. Great, so you do just need the right reasons...
mc32 7y ago
What’s sad is I’ll hear local NPR do a story on something and then support it by citing a “recent study” done in Sacramento with 50 people which supports their take but we’re supposed to take the study at face value. They should know better.
buboard 7y ago
Social sciences are hard. We can hardly explain how a certain nucleus of a single brain works, it's impossible atm to explain how 7 billion of them interacting on a planet behave. Many smart people know that and opt for nicer closed systems like physics, computers or biology. This doesnt mean science is untrusted, but social and political sciences making bold claims should be treated like snakeoil salesmen at the moment: they cannot provide a guarantee of their method that is not self-referential. Doing comparative studies comparing opinions should be labeled as such and respected for what it is: an opinion, but not a hard fact.
stewbrew 7y ago
That's a rather unfair and naive assessment. Scientific disciplines exist within certain paradigmatic borders. What seems right for quantum physics might be implausible in the context of, e.g., cultural studies. What seems right in the context of sociology, e.g., interviewing people, is simply impossible in the context of astrophysics. Ever tried to interview a black hole? As long as people honestly try to do the right thing and not just to gamble the science system, we are on the right way. This doesn't preclude that the contemporary consensual understanding of a problem under study turns out being little more than bullshit some day.

by wtdata 7y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

You're right. On the other hand, I respect the efforts of those who try to make a difference (for example by taking the effort to replicate prominent studies in psychology). Sociology and economics are different beasts altogether. By definition, you can't conduct any meaningul controlled study, so using the name of "science" is a bit of a stretch. Nevertheless, you can't deny that certain "laws", however fuzzy they be, do exist in these fields, and studying them can be very useful, no matter if we call these science or not.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

Strong words and big generalisations, but let's assume you know what you're talking about. Take the social science I studied, linguistics. How does it lack falsifiability? Theories of how languages evolved can be disproven by contradictory evidence in the same way theories would be in any scientific discipline. For example, we know English and German ultimately have a common ancestor, because we can see the similarities between their modern and older forms and explain them in terms of consistent sound changes, and we can systematically explain the differences between the older forms of the two languages such that we can reconstruct what we think is their precursor, and then show in the same fashion that they are related to other European languages. Now, if you believe English and German are in fact descended from ancient Chinese, you can falsify the current theory by showing how they could have evolved, but you can't, because any similarities are superficial and can't be explained systematically. Or did you mean only social sciences that you don't like? Which ones?

wtdata 7y ago
Sure, I can give you a good example about linguistics. Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar [1] in linguistics which is the de facto accepted theory, although there is data from other researchers like Dan Everett that totally disprove the Chomsky’s theory with at least one concrete example. [2] That is exactly the issue I am talking about. You have your in vogue theory in that field and everyone in the academia loves it, and when someone brings you concrete evidence of one of more cases where the theory clearly doesn't apply, what do linguistics do? They dismiss all evidence and carry on just using the theory that is popular. Can you just wonder what would happen in a real field of science if someone brought forward evidence that the de facto theory clearly doesn't apply in one measurement that was made and you couldn't find anything wrong with that observation or measurement? Can you even imagine if someone came forward with a clear case where the velocity of light in vacuum was surpassed by something else? Or if someone was able to measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle? Or if someone found that the environment affects the genes of a living being in order for it to adapt? Or if someone found evidence of fossils much older than we though life in Earth to be? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  Like in any other field, initial theories can be flawed and it takes time to find convincing replacements. It's true that it's imperfect, but I think you have a blind spot for the same failings in other sciences.
  - buboard 7y ago
    One thing though is that a large body of research followed on the same path semi-blindly. Too much trust was placed on Chomsky's (brilliant on publication, but that was 70 years ago!) ideas that the brain might contain machinery for universal grammars. Other fields differ markedly on level of skepticism. That said, linguistics is not a science that is commonly referenced in politics, nor the exemplary "social science". It's arguably closer to hard sciences like mathematics. The science that are trusted when making public policy decisions are usually social/political science, psychology, economics et al.

danieltillett 7y ago

It is much easier to pretend to do science than actually do science. When the system rewards imitation science as highly as real science then you can expect that you will get a lot of lookalike science. Why work hard collecting data from 1000 people and finding nothing exciting, when collecting data from 50 is accceptable with the added kicker that chance alone might throw up something supporting the politics of your peers.

swebs 7y ago
There's actually a term for this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
rndgermandude 7y ago
I have recently seen a hard uptick of social "science" papers with a N=1, where said N is the author describing their personal experience, i.e. biased and highly subjective anecdotes. Mind you, otherwise these papers look very "sciency", with tons of citations and footnotes sprinkled in, and quite often with grant disclosures at the end. At least, this is my N=1 experience ;)

swebs 7y ago

Since it's trendy to recommend related books on HN, I'd nominate "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" by none other than Alan Sokal. It's a fascinating read and just as valid today as it was 20 years ago when it was published, which is actually a bit depressing in my opinion.

carlob 7y ago
I read that book (FWIW you should also mention the other author: Bricmont). While I agree it's very interesting I don't think it applies that much to the type of studies in this report. As far as I can recall it seems to focus mostly on history and philosophy of sciences, literary criticism and cultural studies.

raxxorrax 7y ago

The greater scam is that the findings are used to justify real discrimination. Without any basis to it. Great, so you do just need the right reasons...

mc32 7y ago

What’s sad is I’ll hear local NPR do a story on something and then support it by citing a “recent study” done in Sacramento with 50 people which supports their take but we’re supposed to take the study at face value. They should know better.

buboard 7y ago

Social sciences are hard. We can hardly explain how a certain nucleus of a single brain works, it's impossible atm to explain how 7 billion of them interacting on a planet behave. Many smart people know that and opt for nicer closed systems like physics, computers or biology. This doesnt mean science is untrusted, but social and political sciences making bold claims should be treated like snakeoil salesmen at the moment: they cannot provide a guarantee of their method that is not self-referential. Doing comparative studies comparing opinions should be labeled as such and respected for what it is: an opinion, but not a hard fact.

stewbrew 7y ago

That's a rather unfair and naive assessment. Scientific disciplines exist within certain paradigmatic borders. What seems right for quantum physics might be implausible in the context of, e.g., cultural studies. What seems right in the context of sociology, e.g., interviewing people, is simply impossible in the context of astrophysics. Ever tried to interview a black hole? As long as people honestly try to do the right thing and not just to gamble the science system, we are on the right way. This doesn't preclude that the contemporary consensual understanding of a problem under study turns out being little more than bullshit some day.