3 ms·

I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works. As has been said, reality has a surprising amount of detail. This means th

I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works. As has been said, reality has a surprising amount of detail. This means that, outside mathematics, perfect methodology is impossible. So you do your level best to create a good methodology under the constraints of time, technology and proper understanding, and roll out the experiment. Filling in the cracks of doubt is a big part of what replication and productionizing is for. Of you think a study has a big enough hole in it's methodology, you are free to go design your own study to try to plug the hole or refute the result. A corollary, though, is that there is always going to be a 'hole' big enough for a jackass on the internet to criticize. But the question is whether you're willing to put the skin in the game to see if the result holds when you design a study to exploit the hole.

wolverine876 5y ago
> outside mathematics, perfect methodology is impossible Even in mathematics ... others on HN are better qualified than I am to comment, but I've read mathematicians say that almost no reader of a paper works out all the math; to a degree they go by reputation of the author that the mathematics is generally correct. Similarly to your comment, while outsiders envision perfection, people inside have limited time for it. It may be more productive to spend that time on new research than on investigating every little detail of old research.
jhoelzel 5y ago
I believe this is only partially true! We call it science because when we find methods that we all agree on, as a culture to use then it becomes scientific. For Instance psychology, in the freudean psychology the methology is still science even though he speaks of urges of "your mother" and interesting things like the "subconciousness". It has been met with great doubt over it's "initiation" but is now a widely acceptable practise. So what has changed? Well the field concentrated on scientific core value which (almost) boil down to: Find a methology, prove that it works and replicated it again.scientific quality criteria. I agree with op! Stimulating cells with electricity is not teaching them. Its assisted muscle reaction. In this case its really clear cut too: if I need to give the braincells electro schocks (the thing they operate on), If anything, I am remote controlling brain cells. The whole idea of perception is flawed in this experiment, you know, because there is no actual perceptor of the paddel to begin with. Sorry but as someone with a bachelor in psychology and 20 years of dev experience the starting poing of "I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works." is just condecending theory. This is literally what "scientific quality criteria" is based on.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Freudian psychoanalysis is absolutely not widely accepted. “Therapy” is a different thing altogether; essentially an American misinterpretation of the practice. And it’s popular because it’s profitable because it’s efficient. It legitimates various medical and pseudo-medical so-called expert institutions and displaces attention to the less desired byproducts of modern capitalism. Freud’s work, on the other hand, was extremely inefficient in comparison and rather served to expose and develop awareness of neurosis rather than to medicate.
  - jhoelzel 5y ago
    i get what you are trying to say but its the old quantitative vs qualitative research discussion again and while I accept your opinion in the manner and the way you vaulue it, the reasoning is flawed from my perspective. Psychoanalysis is only the tip of the freudian journey and i was not trying to say that everything he did on a cocain run was perfect or even valid. What i was trying to say is that the scientific process for this has evolved and in reality what diffencietes science from pseudo science is methodology. Psychology is literally the method of the psyche (translated). Even this mythbusters says: the difference between science and screwing around is to write it all down ;)

wolverine876 5y ago

> outside mathematics, perfect methodology is impossible Even in mathematics ... others on HN are better qualified than I am to comment, but I've read mathematicians say that almost no reader of a paper works out all the math; to a degree they go by reputation of the author that the mathematics is generally correct. Similarly to your comment, while outsiders envision perfection, people inside have limited time for it. It may be more productive to spend that time on new research than on investigating every little detail of old research.

jhoelzel 5y ago

I believe this is only partially true! We call it science because when we find methods that we all agree on, as a culture to use then it becomes scientific. For Instance psychology, in the freudean psychology the methology is still science even though he speaks of urges of "your mother" and interesting things like the "subconciousness". It has been met with great doubt over it's "initiation" but is now a widely acceptable practise. So what has changed? Well the field concentrated on scientific core value which (almost) boil down to: Find a methology, prove that it works and replicated it again.scientific quality criteria. I agree with op! Stimulating cells with electricity is not teaching them. Its assisted muscle reaction. In this case its really clear cut too: if I need to give the braincells electro schocks (the thing they operate on), If anything, I am remote controlling brain cells. The whole idea of perception is flawed in this experiment, you know, because there is no actual perceptor of the paddel to begin with. Sorry but as someone with a bachelor in psychology and 20 years of dev experience the starting poing of "I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works." is just condecending theory. This is literally what "scientific quality criteria" is based on.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Freudian psychoanalysis is absolutely not widely accepted. “Therapy” is a different thing altogether; essentially an American misinterpretation of the practice. And it’s popular because it’s profitable because it’s efficient. It legitimates various medical and pseudo-medical so-called expert institutions and displaces attention to the less desired byproducts of modern capitalism. Freud’s work, on the other hand, was extremely inefficient in comparison and rather served to expose and develop awareness of neurosis rather than to medicate.
- jhoelzel 5y ago
  i get what you are trying to say but its the old quantitative vs qualitative research discussion again and while I accept your opinion in the manner and the way you vaulue it, the reasoning is flawed from my perspective. Psychoanalysis is only the tip of the freudian journey and i was not trying to say that everything he did on a cocain run was perfect or even valid. What i was trying to say is that the scientific process for this has evolved and in reality what diffencietes science from pseudo science is methodology. Psychology is literally the method of the psyche (translated). Even this mythbusters says: the difference between science and screwing around is to write it all down ;)