5 ms·

What's the purpose of this? It will just give ammo to anti-science Trump like people. It's harmful. This kind of stuff should be handled as quietly as possible

What's the purpose of this? It will just give ammo to anti-science Trump like people. It's harmful. This kind of stuff should be handled as quietly as possible, and definitely not in public. Science is already under attack, we need not undermine it from the inside too.

technothrasher 5y ago
Really? Covering up a messy truth because you perceive it as not politically expedient strikes me as the exact opposite of science. That road leads to worse knowledge, not better.
AussieWog93 5y ago
Anti-science people tend to be conspiracy-minded and believe that the establishment is a homogeneous group that is trying to mislead the public. Creating an actual conspiracy to mislead the public is not a good way to fight this perception.
lyaa 5y ago
I disagree. Constant re-evaluation of evidence and improvement of working theories are essential to science. Science needs transparency and honest critique. Acknowledging falsified results is not an attack on science, it is how science works. It shows that science is not a mysterious cult of knowledge conspiring to hide information and deceive others, but rather the collective effort of imperfect humans who want to understand the universe and make things better for us all.
avnigo 5y ago
What you just said goes against everything science stands for, otherwise it just becomes a belief system, and you're no better than what you warn against.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> What's the purpose of this? It will just give ammo to anti-science Trump like people. It's bizarre how today, in USA, for some it's all about "the other camp can't have a win, at any cost", and not what is right. Fake science hurts science the most, and covering it up IS WHAT is going to give ammo to whoever you do not like, calling a fraud a fraud doesn't do that.
planet-and-halo 5y ago
Not sure if serious, but I disagree. I think scientists playing games with public perception is a big part of what undermined their credibility in the first place. Also this article talks about Ariely loudly promoting his own work after claiming he already should have known it failed to replicate. If scientific studies are being used to drive public discourse, then debunking them should be public discourse too. The very strength of science is its ability to be self-critical. The mechanics of that shouldn't be hidden away.
anchpop 5y ago
I mean, if anti-science trump people use this to be skeptical of results in psychology and sociology, how wrong would they be? these fields are genuinely corrupt and generate unreliable results. We already know the solution: preregistration and registered reports. That may not actually be enough because there are other issues (e.g. almost all studies that attempt to “control for x” or similar are subtly flawed and should be replaced with proper RCTs), but it would at least be a huge and obvious and inexpensive step in the right direction, and the fact that it hasn’t been implemented yet shows that the field is immature and broadly shouldn’t be trusted. (compare to medical research, which has embraced prereplication because the FDA is actually serious about safety and efficacy and had the good sense to require it. but the FDA is anchored in the real world - if they get it wrong people may die and it’s on their hands. If psychologists get a result wrong, they may generate a bombastic paper for themselves, do a ted talk, go speak on NPR, then write a popsci book, and generally boost their career. So the incentive is for the FDA to be right and for the psychologist to be wrong, so it’s not surprising that that’s what we see.)

technothrasher 5y ago

Really? Covering up a messy truth because you perceive it as not politically expedient strikes me as the exact opposite of science. That road leads to worse knowledge, not better.

AussieWog93 5y ago

Anti-science people tend to be conspiracy-minded and believe that the establishment is a homogeneous group that is trying to mislead the public. Creating an actual conspiracy to mislead the public is not a good way to fight this perception.

lyaa 5y ago

I disagree. Constant re-evaluation of evidence and improvement of working theories are essential to science. Science needs transparency and honest critique. Acknowledging falsified results is not an attack on science, it is how science works. It shows that science is not a mysterious cult of knowledge conspiring to hide information and deceive others, but rather the collective effort of imperfect humans who want to understand the universe and make things better for us all.

avnigo 5y ago

What you just said goes against everything science stands for, otherwise it just becomes a belief system, and you're no better than what you warn against.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> What's the purpose of this? It will just give ammo to anti-science Trump like people. It's bizarre how today, in USA, for some it's all about "the other camp can't have a win, at any cost", and not what is right. Fake science hurts science the most, and covering it up IS WHAT is going to give ammo to whoever you do not like, calling a fraud a fraud doesn't do that.

planet-and-halo 5y ago

Not sure if serious, but I disagree. I think scientists playing games with public perception is a big part of what undermined their credibility in the first place. Also this article talks about Ariely loudly promoting his own work after claiming he already should have known it failed to replicate. If scientific studies are being used to drive public discourse, then debunking them should be public discourse too. The very strength of science is its ability to be self-critical. The mechanics of that shouldn't be hidden away.

anchpop 5y ago

I mean, if anti-science trump people use this to be skeptical of results in psychology and sociology, how wrong would they be? these fields are genuinely corrupt and generate unreliable results. We already know the solution: preregistration and registered reports. That may not actually be enough because there are other issues (e.g. almost all studies that attempt to “control for x” or similar are subtly flawed and should be replaced with proper RCTs), but it would at least be a huge and obvious and inexpensive step in the right direction, and the fact that it hasn’t been implemented yet shows that the field is immature and broadly shouldn’t be trusted. (compare to medical research, which has embraced prereplication because the FDA is actually serious about safety and efficacy and had the good sense to require it. but the FDA is anchored in the real world - if they get it wrong people may die and it’s on their hands. If psychologists get a result wrong, they may generate a bombastic paper for themselves, do a ted talk, go speak on NPR, then write a popsci book, and generally boost their career. So the incentive is for the FDA to be right and for the psychologist to be wrong, so it’s not surprising that that’s what we see.)