4 ms·

Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphas

Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them. It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture.

mrlala 7y ago
>Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? No one said that. >Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them Err.. science is facing a crisis of reproducibility? Excuse me? If you can't reproduce something- that means you haven't proved it scientifically, thus the science is telling you that it can't tell you anything. >It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture. Ok now, hold up. You are saying scientific studies is the same as religious dogma....? Do you honestly need me or someone to explain to you the difference?
- andreilys 7y ago
  2/3rd of social sciences cannot be replicated [1]. 52% of scientists think there is a significant reproducibility crisis [2] If that doesn't signal a reproducibility crisis I don't know what does. Dogma is dogma, no matter the origin. Many people who are today dogmatic about the scientific method, would be the same people that would be dogmatic about religion in the 16th century. At the end of the day it is merely one lens of looking at reality, not the only lens. This isn't even touching on the fact that the scientific method is riddled with issues and ill equipped to tackle certain problems. Paul Feyerabend explores this nuanced issue in Against Method, which I recommend reading if you ever want to take off the pro-scientific method spectacles [3] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183... [2] https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/1844674428 https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/184...
alexandercrohde 7y ago
Well I don't think the argument is that you need academic justification before implementing something in your own life. Obviously not the case. But at the same time, for people like myself, who are surrounded by people offering millions of self-reported miracle-cures, I have to ignore the vast majority of self-reported and look to systematic study as a way to find reliable patterns when decided what to try with my limited time.

mrlala 7y ago

>Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? No one said that. >Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them Err.. science is facing a crisis of reproducibility? Excuse me? If you can't reproduce something- that means you haven't proved it scientifically, thus the science is telling you that it can't tell you anything. >It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture. Ok now, hold up. You are saying scientific studies is the same as religious dogma....? Do you honestly need me or someone to explain to you the difference?

andreilys 7y ago
2/3rd of social sciences cannot be replicated [1]. 52% of scientists think there is a significant reproducibility crisis [2] If that doesn't signal a reproducibility crisis I don't know what does. Dogma is dogma, no matter the origin. Many people who are today dogmatic about the scientific method, would be the same people that would be dogmatic about religion in the 16th century. At the end of the day it is merely one lens of looking at reality, not the only lens. This isn't even touching on the fact that the scientific method is riddled with issues and ill equipped to tackle certain problems. Paul Feyerabend explores this nuanced issue in Against Method, which I recommend reading if you ever want to take off the pro-scientific method spectacles [3] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183... [2] https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/1844674428 https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/184...

alexandercrohde 7y ago

Well I don't think the argument is that you need academic justification before implementing something in your own life. Obviously not the case. But at the same time, for people like myself, who are surrounded by people offering millions of self-reported miracle-cures, I have to ignore the vast majority of self-reported and look to systematic study as a way to find reliable patterns when decided what to try with my limited time.