6 ms·

Even peer reviewed research won't make me believe claims like that. Experimental psychology seems a field plagued by replicability crisis, and frankly I think t

Even peer reviewed research won't make me believe claims like that. Experimental psychology seems a field plagued by replicability crisis, and frankly I think the field is just a self perpetuating paper mill for those in it, and a futile pursuit. Psychology in my view needs a theoritical approach. Did Freud, William James etc need to do experiments with 30 graduate students to study about the working of the mind, and behaviour of people?.

b3kart 6y ago
With no experimental validation my theory is as good as Freud’s theory for all intents and purposes. Maybe we should be thinking around improving experimental methodology instead? Then we can try to come up with complex theories and test them.
- billfruit 6y ago
  Without resorting to experiments, theories can be valuable in themselves, their soundness of argument, their coherence, and them not leading to confounding and condtradictory predictions can guide us as to their validity. There is value in approaching problems analytically rather than resorting to empirical methods.
  - euthymiclabs 6y ago
    Modern psychology is heavily driven by both theory and empiric techniques. The theories themselves are rich and generally cohesive, but without empirical validation, they are essentially bare philosophy. Of course they aren't as water tight as the theories and observations of physics, but if you spend any time in the core psychological literature, you'll find a ton of theoretical work.
  - b3kart 6y ago
    Spotted a mathematician. ;-) > theories can be valuable in themselves Maybe they can be (in pure mathematics, or philosophy, as the sibling comment points out), but not if your end-goal is to apply your theory or its predictions in the real world. Then suddenly the soundest and most coherent of theories can fall apart. > There is value in approaching problems analytically rather than resorting to empirical methods. Sure, but whether your arrive at your predictions analytically or empirically it does not preclude you from testing them experimentally.
tpoacher 6y ago
Just as it is important to be exact on what a pvalue shows and what it does not, it is equally important to be precise on what "replication crisis" means, and what it does not. Specifically what it means is that the current binary system for describing significance is built precisely in such a way that even in the case of true effects, the probability that two studies would disagree could be as high as 50%. Therefore we need better metrics to describe the evidence. What it does NOT mean, is that all the research conducted is sham and worthless. Specifically, if one study finds p=0.045 and another finds p=0.055, then the two studies will be in conflict (i.e. failure to replicate). But to use those pvalues to then claim "there is no evidence of an effect" shows a misunderstanding of the whole process, since a pvalue of 0.055 is actually pretty good evidence (just not as good as our arbitrary threshold). Popularisation of the term "replication crisis" as a term is part of the problem if you ask me. It points the finger completely in the wrong direction.

b3kart 6y ago

With no experimental validation my theory is as good as Freud’s theory for all intents and purposes. Maybe we should be thinking around improving experimental methodology instead? Then we can try to come up with complex theories and test them.

billfruit 6y ago
Without resorting to experiments, theories can be valuable in themselves, their soundness of argument, their coherence, and them not leading to confounding and condtradictory predictions can guide us as to their validity. There is value in approaching problems analytically rather than resorting to empirical methods.
- euthymiclabs 6y ago
  Modern psychology is heavily driven by both theory and empiric techniques. The theories themselves are rich and generally cohesive, but without empirical validation, they are essentially bare philosophy. Of course they aren't as water tight as the theories and observations of physics, but if you spend any time in the core psychological literature, you'll find a ton of theoretical work.
- b3kart 6y ago
  Spotted a mathematician. ;-) > theories can be valuable in themselves Maybe they can be (in pure mathematics, or philosophy, as the sibling comment points out), but not if your end-goal is to apply your theory or its predictions in the real world. Then suddenly the soundest and most coherent of theories can fall apart. > There is value in approaching problems analytically rather than resorting to empirical methods. Sure, but whether your arrive at your predictions analytically or empirically it does not preclude you from testing them experimentally.

tpoacher 6y ago

Just as it is important to be exact on what a pvalue shows and what it does not, it is equally important to be precise on what "replication crisis" means, and what it does not. Specifically what it means is that the current binary system for describing significance is built precisely in such a way that even in the case of true effects, the probability that two studies would disagree could be as high as 50%. Therefore we need better metrics to describe the evidence. What it does NOT mean, is that all the research conducted is sham and worthless. Specifically, if one study finds p=0.045 and another finds p=0.055, then the two studies will be in conflict (i.e. failure to replicate). But to use those pvalues to then claim "there is no evidence of an effect" shows a misunderstanding of the whole process, since a pvalue of 0.055 is actually pretty good evidence (just not as good as our arbitrary threshold). Popularisation of the term "replication crisis" as a term is part of the problem if you ask me. It points the finger completely in the wrong direction.