4 ms·

It's in a replication crisis because pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ). It's why Richard Fey

It's in a replication crisis because pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ). It's why Richard Feynmann associated social science with pseudoscience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo Because real science destroyed the credibility of religion and religion in much of the world is no longer a credible social control tool, the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Whereas religion controlled everything from economics, schooling, family, culture, society, law, etc, now they all fall under the pseudoscience/religion called social "science". --------------------------------------------- Reply to ziddoap. Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested. I consider social science to be a pseudoscience for the same reason richard feynmann did. Did you bother watching what he had to say? Social "science" is a humanities. It belongs in the category with philosophy, ethics, literature, religion, etc. Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad. I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science.

spamizbad 7y ago
> pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ) By this standard, neither is most preclinical cancer research as so few of them replicate (11% - source: https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a). Even social science puts up better numbers than that (~60%)
- germanlee 7y ago
  There is a difference between bad science and "not being a science" ( aka pseudoscience ). The difference is that in one you can formulate replicable science. In the other, by its nature, you can't. Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. So on and so forth. Much of it is pretty much a "religious" endeavor. Pretty much those with power decide and social "science" is used to justify whereas in the past religion was the justification.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "... Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society..." Society isn't... natural? "There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. " I wasn't aware that social science even attempted to answer these questions? Like most sciences, and this study, it attempts to study phenomenon as they occur. In this case this meta-study was trying to see if the backfire effect actually exists... which isn't making any moral or societal debate or opinion, just trying to verify a phenomenon existing. Which sounds pretty scientific to me?
    - CriticalCathed 7y ago
      Studying behavior is not equivalent to studying, say, astrophysics. It is of course "natural" in the same sense that everything is natural, but the lack of the ability to ground research in empirical evidence means that the fields of economics, social science, psychology, and especially evolutionary psychology etc. are not actually engaging in science. The form, structure, tendencies, or beliefs of a human culture are not at all analoglous to say studying a distant and ancient star by observing its emission spectrum or investigating the nature of reality by investigating subatomic particle interactions. This fundamental difference means that these fields will never be as dependable as true science; to be clear that doesn't mean they're useless, only that they're not science.
ziddoap 7y ago
>the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Source? I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think all social science is pseudoscience. However, if it's going to be the illuminati-esque, I'll take a pass.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Not exactly a source, but from my person experience I have seen people believing in social science results with a fervor that matches religious people believing in religious material. Questioning a study, even with valid reasoning, causes one to receive treatment that compared to questioning religious teachings. Bringing up an alternative study, if it disagrees with the person's own leanings, is comparable to quoting the wrong religious book to a religious individual. Having significant experience in both religious communities and the social sciences, there feels to be a lot of overlap and I personally see nothing wrong with seeing it as serving as a replacement religion for those who have left the classical ones behind. Now to clarify, I am not saying it is psedoscience or some conspiracy by the elites. I think it happens, to give an overly summarized summary, because religion fills a spot in the average's human psyche that when empty people seek to fill with something else and social sciences are similar enough to serve as a good replacement. As for the reliability of the science, there is a reproducibility problem and the social sciences are plagued with issues to a far greater extent than the hard sciences. That doesn't mean it is fake, but that studies, especially those with little variations and replications, need to be taken with a measured serving of salt.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    Interesting perspective for sure, and I think I can agree that people seem to get incredibly invested in some of these studies and subsequently defend them, as you described, with a religious fervor. My bigger issue with the parent comment was more aimed at the matter-of-fact "it's the elites" statement, which I have little patience for. Using a conspiracy to justify your thoughts that something else is a conspiracy is a bit circular. Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
  - chillwaves 7y ago
feanaro 7y ago
I see this position somewhat often, almost unavoidably accompanied by a reference to Feynman. The position is, of course, pure nonsense if you take a few moments to think it through. Not only has the world moved on drastically from when Feynman, a non-expert in the area, wrote that essay, but it is also ludicrous to claim that a part of existence is unamenable to scientific study. If it exists and has an effect, it can be studied. There is no reason to believe human behaviour and thought is beyond this.
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  >Not only has the world moved on drastically from when Feynman... You're right, social science got even less replicable and less scientific. >If it exists and has an effect, it can be studied. Yes, you're right. But that doesn't mean that you can ground it in empirical evidence or effectively apply the scientific method of inquiry. Philosophy is a method of studying human behavior -- it is not, however, science. And for substantially the same set of reasons the social sciences are also not science.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    > You're right, social science got even less replicable and less scientific. You'll need to substantiate this claim, of course. > Yes, you're right. But that doesn't mean that you can ground it in empirical evidence or effectively apply the scientific method of inquiry. Why not? > Philosophy is a method of studying human behavior -- it is not, however, science. And for substantially the same set of reasons the social sciences are also not science. You are simply repeating the old misconception I've hinted at: that human behaviour is off-limits to scientific inquiry, even though it is real and physical. I fail to see why this would be the case. We are, after all, talking about measurable, quantifiable things inputs and outputs regarding human behaviour.
    - CriticalCathed 7y ago
      >We are, after all, talking about measurable, quantifiable things inputs and outputs regarding human behaviour. I don't think it's true. Looking at behavior is like trying to guess at the internals of a black box piece of software that's very well obfuscated + randomized. The empirical way to do it is more along the lines of neuropsych -- taking a look at the physical processes involved. I think human psychology and behavior is a lot like the plumage of a peacock; pretty, loud, but ultimately an abstraction above what is really going on.
ziddoap 7y ago
Not sure if you'd see my edit so I thought I'd reply directly. >Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested. I am interested. >Did you bother watching what he had to say? I have. >Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad. I never said that you think it's useless, or bad. >I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science. I actually agree here, to be honest. >the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. This is literally the only thing I took issue with. I was, and am, genuinely curious on all the other stuff. I was hoping you would expand on it. I, however, thought it prudent to mention that I'd not be interested in reading it from the "elites controlling society" position.

spamizbad 7y ago

> pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ) By this standard, neither is most preclinical cancer research as so few of them replicate (11% - source: https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a). Even social science puts up better numbers than that (~60%)

germanlee 7y ago
There is a difference between bad science and "not being a science" ( aka pseudoscience ). The difference is that in one you can formulate replicable science. In the other, by its nature, you can't. Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. So on and so forth. Much of it is pretty much a "religious" endeavor. Pretty much those with power decide and social "science" is used to justify whereas in the past religion was the justification.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "... Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society..." Society isn't... natural? "There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. " I wasn't aware that social science even attempted to answer these questions? Like most sciences, and this study, it attempts to study phenomenon as they occur. In this case this meta-study was trying to see if the backfire effect actually exists... which isn't making any moral or societal debate or opinion, just trying to verify a phenomenon existing. Which sounds pretty scientific to me?
  - CriticalCathed 7y ago
    Studying behavior is not equivalent to studying, say, astrophysics. It is of course "natural" in the same sense that everything is natural, but the lack of the ability to ground research in empirical evidence means that the fields of economics, social science, psychology, and especially evolutionary psychology etc. are not actually engaging in science. The form, structure, tendencies, or beliefs of a human culture are not at all analoglous to say studying a distant and ancient star by observing its emission spectrum or investigating the nature of reality by investigating subatomic particle interactions. This fundamental difference means that these fields will never be as dependable as true science; to be clear that doesn't mean they're useless, only that they're not science.

ziddoap 7y ago

>the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Source? I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think all social science is pseudoscience. However, if it's going to be the illuminati-esque, I'll take a pass.

SkyBelow 7y ago
Not exactly a source, but from my person experience I have seen people believing in social science results with a fervor that matches religious people believing in religious material. Questioning a study, even with valid reasoning, causes one to receive treatment that compared to questioning religious teachings. Bringing up an alternative study, if it disagrees with the person's own leanings, is comparable to quoting the wrong religious book to a religious individual. Having significant experience in both religious communities and the social sciences, there feels to be a lot of overlap and I personally see nothing wrong with seeing it as serving as a replacement religion for those who have left the classical ones behind. Now to clarify, I am not saying it is psedoscience or some conspiracy by the elites. I think it happens, to give an overly summarized summary, because religion fills a spot in the average's human psyche that when empty people seek to fill with something else and social sciences are similar enough to serve as a good replacement. As for the reliability of the science, there is a reproducibility problem and the social sciences are plagued with issues to a far greater extent than the hard sciences. That doesn't mean it is fake, but that studies, especially those with little variations and replications, need to be taken with a measured serving of salt.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  Interesting perspective for sure, and I think I can agree that people seem to get incredibly invested in some of these studies and subsequently defend them, as you described, with a religious fervor. My bigger issue with the parent comment was more aimed at the matter-of-fact "it's the elites" statement, which I have little patience for. Using a conspiracy to justify your thoughts that something else is a conspiracy is a bit circular. Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
- chillwaves 7y ago

feanaro 7y ago

I see this position somewhat often, almost unavoidably accompanied by a reference to Feynman. The position is, of course, pure nonsense if you take a few moments to think it through. Not only has the world moved on drastically from when Feynman, a non-expert in the area, wrote that essay, but it is also ludicrous to claim that a part of existence is unamenable to scientific study. If it exists and has an effect, it can be studied. There is no reason to believe human behaviour and thought is beyond this.

CriticalCathed 7y ago
>Not only has the world moved on drastically from when Feynman... You're right, social science got even less replicable and less scientific. >If it exists and has an effect, it can be studied. Yes, you're right. But that doesn't mean that you can ground it in empirical evidence or effectively apply the scientific method of inquiry. Philosophy is a method of studying human behavior -- it is not, however, science. And for substantially the same set of reasons the social sciences are also not science.
- feanaro 7y ago
  > You're right, social science got even less replicable and less scientific. You'll need to substantiate this claim, of course. > Yes, you're right. But that doesn't mean that you can ground it in empirical evidence or effectively apply the scientific method of inquiry. Why not? > Philosophy is a method of studying human behavior -- it is not, however, science. And for substantially the same set of reasons the social sciences are also not science. You are simply repeating the old misconception I've hinted at: that human behaviour is off-limits to scientific inquiry, even though it is real and physical. I fail to see why this would be the case. We are, after all, talking about measurable, quantifiable things inputs and outputs regarding human behaviour.
  - CriticalCathed 7y ago
    >We are, after all, talking about measurable, quantifiable things inputs and outputs regarding human behaviour. I don't think it's true. Looking at behavior is like trying to guess at the internals of a black box piece of software that's very well obfuscated + randomized. The empirical way to do it is more along the lines of neuropsych -- taking a look at the physical processes involved. I think human psychology and behavior is a lot like the plumage of a peacock; pretty, loud, but ultimately an abstraction above what is really going on.

ziddoap 7y ago

Not sure if you'd see my edit so I thought I'd reply directly. >Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested. I am interested. >Did you bother watching what he had to say? I have. >Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad. I never said that you think it's useless, or bad. >I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science. I actually agree here, to be honest. >the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. This is literally the only thing I took issue with. I was, and am, genuinely curious on all the other stuff. I was hoping you would expand on it. I, however, thought it prudent to mention that I'd not be interested in reading it from the "elites controlling society" position.