5 ms·

They're called soft sciences for a reason, they're more about interpretation and opinion than hard irrefutable evidence. So this is not surprising, it's probabl

They're called soft sciences for a reason, they're more about interpretation and opinion than hard irrefutable evidence. So this is not surprising, it's probably quite a bit higher than 50% too, and in all of the soft science fields where agendas or political motives may be present; sociology, psychology, political science, some archaeology, etc

wallace_f 7y ago
If you can't follow the scientific method most of the time, should their work be considered science at all?
- utopian3 7y ago
  This is my concern. If you can only partially trust the science journals because the science is faulty, what “science” can you trust? ... unless you attempt replicate every piece of research yourself?
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Are you actually arguing that randomized controlled trials aren't following the scientific method?
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    Clinical trials are not true repeatable, scientific experiments. They're really just controlled studies which are the best that can be done in the absence of the possibility of a controlled experiment. In psychology, this however is just the tip of an iceberg of problems with such research being unscientific.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      I don't follow. An experiment needs to be repeatable in principle. You don't actually have to re-run it with the exact same specimens or subjects; they can be sampled from some larger population that you're studying (e.g., patients with depression). Nevertheless, you can often do something like a cross-over design that lets you repeatedly test the same patients in different conditions.
mattkrause 7y ago
Rubbish. The papers analyzed here are reporting the outcomes of randomized controlled trials. Political motivations, opinions, and interpretations have nothing to do with any of these papers' results. A fair number of HN commentators have this bizarre caricature of psychology as someone lying on the couch, chattering about feelings while a tweed-jacketed man scribbles away. However, it hasn't been 1920 for a long time and the field has grown up and moved on. It's an actual science, with experiments and quantitative analysis\* and all that. The problems it tackles are really hard, in some ways evenmoreso than physics: you can generate an endless stream of identical electrons, but every human is different and has their own motivations. \* Yes, yes, replication crisis, fMRI salmon of doubt. It's serious but psychology should get some credit for a) identifying it in the first place and b) fixing it. These problems certainly aren't confined to psych--it's mostly that psych experiments are easier to replicate.
- candiodari 7y ago
  Have you ever talked to people in the social sciences ? There very much is political motivations, opinions and interpretations. And don't forget careers. Many people have built decade-long careers on being the go-to person (or even department, it can be a dozen careers) for specific treatments. Look up what EMDR is, for a particularly ludicrous example, and read the career of Francine Shapiro. Note that she had decades in which she had a great position to collect support and evidence for her therapy, as a professor, director of a treatment center and practicing clinician ... and somehow she never did (mind if I make the assumption that she did in fact collect plenty of data, it just said what all psychiatric studies say about all treatments) Psychoanalysis or "someone lying on the couch, chattering about feelings while a tweed-jacketed man scribbles away" was done until deep in the 80s, where it was canceled because of the famous observation that it was exactly as effective as giving patients a free membership card to a sport club (not even checking if they used it at all: so some patients wouldn't have). But truth is that it was not just done because psychoanalysis wasn't effective. It in fact psychoanalysis is definitely the most effective treatment in psychiatry. It was done so attention from expensive psychiatrists could be removed entirely from patients, as a cost-saving measure. Now all psychiatrists do is draw out treatment plans, to be executed by people with much less training than they have. Now a patient in mental health treatment is lucky to see a psychiatrist once a month. All these treatments found are known to be far less effective than psychoanalysis. Psychiatry as a whole is simply a fraud. There isn't a single known treatment against depression, other than fixing the problem that causes the depression (which is external to the patient, and never has anything to do with psychiatry) For the same story with added drama, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

wallace_f 7y ago

If you can't follow the scientific method most of the time, should their work be considered science at all?

utopian3 7y ago
This is my concern. If you can only partially trust the science journals because the science is faulty, what “science” can you trust? ... unless you attempt replicate every piece of research yourself?
mattkrause 7y ago
Are you actually arguing that randomized controlled trials aren't following the scientific method?
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Clinical trials are not true repeatable, scientific experiments. They're really just controlled studies which are the best that can be done in the absence of the possibility of a controlled experiment. In psychology, this however is just the tip of an iceberg of problems with such research being unscientific.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    I don't follow. An experiment needs to be repeatable in principle. You don't actually have to re-run it with the exact same specimens or subjects; they can be sampled from some larger population that you're studying (e.g., patients with depression). Nevertheless, you can often do something like a cross-over design that lets you repeatedly test the same patients in different conditions.

mattkrause 7y ago

Rubbish. The papers analyzed here are reporting the outcomes of randomized controlled trials. Political motivations, opinions, and interpretations have nothing to do with any of these papers' results. A fair number of HN commentators have this bizarre caricature of psychology as someone lying on the couch, chattering about feelings while a tweed-jacketed man scribbles away. However, it hasn't been 1920 for a long time and the field has grown up and moved on. It's an actual science, with experiments and quantitative analysis\* and all that. The problems it tackles are really hard, in some ways evenmoreso than physics: you can generate an endless stream of identical electrons, but every human is different and has their own motivations. \* Yes, yes, replication crisis, fMRI salmon of doubt. It's serious but psychology should get some credit for a) identifying it in the first place and b) fixing it. These problems certainly aren't confined to psych--it's mostly that psych experiments are easier to replicate.

candiodari 7y ago
Have you ever talked to people in the social sciences ? There very much is political motivations, opinions and interpretations. And don't forget careers. Many people have built decade-long careers on being the go-to person (or even department, it can be a dozen careers) for specific treatments. Look up what EMDR is, for a particularly ludicrous example, and read the career of Francine Shapiro. Note that she had decades in which she had a great position to collect support and evidence for her therapy, as a professor, director of a treatment center and practicing clinician ... and somehow she never did (mind if I make the assumption that she did in fact collect plenty of data, it just said what all psychiatric studies say about all treatments) Psychoanalysis or "someone lying on the couch, chattering about feelings while a tweed-jacketed man scribbles away" was done until deep in the 80s, where it was canceled because of the famous observation that it was exactly as effective as giving patients a free membership card to a sport club (not even checking if they used it at all: so some patients wouldn't have). But truth is that it was not just done because psychoanalysis wasn't effective. It in fact psychoanalysis is definitely the most effective treatment in psychiatry. It was done so attention from expensive psychiatrists could be removed entirely from patients, as a cost-saving measure. Now all psychiatrists do is draw out treatment plans, to be executed by people with much less training than they have. Now a patient in mental health treatment is lucky to see a psychiatrist once a month. All these treatments found are known to be far less effective than psychoanalysis. Psychiatry as a whole is simply a fraud. There isn't a single known treatment against depression, other than fixing the problem that causes the depression (which is external to the patient, and never has anything to do with psychiatry) For the same story with added drama, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment