3 ms·
While this could very well be valid in natural science fields, I’ve heard that in humanity fields as well as in something as controversial and largely unknown a
by SZJX 6y ago
While this could very well be valid in natural science fields, I’ve heard that in humanity fields as well as in something as controversial and largely unknown as neuroscience (different from traditional hard science fields such as maths and physics), the consensus gets overthrown so quickly/gets a makeover almost every decade, that old research might appear completely different from the newest consensus in the field. Of course you still have to draw a conclusion yourself in the end by synthesizing all available information, but I wouldn’t say that old information would necessarily be more trustworthy in this case. A lot of understanding in psychology/health from a few decades ago seem to be deemed nonsensical nowadays, and in many of the cases I agree with the newer conclusions.
- inimino 6y ago> A lot of understanding in psychology/health from a few decades ago seem to be deemed nonsensical nowadays, and in many of the cases I agree with the newer conclusions. This is why the Lindy heuristic mentioned by a sibling comment to yours is relevant. If X% of the consensus in a field was overturned twenty years ago, then again ten years ago, your expectation should be that in ten years, X% of the current consensus will be thrown out as nonsense as well. So it's not necessarily that the old information was more accurate, but you can't interpret the new information well without it. What's X in your field? Maybe 5%, maybe 80%, then you should look at the field very differently. Of course, you could be living through another annus mirabilis, where a new consensus is established that then stands for centuries. But this is by definition unlikely, so there must be strong evidence available.