4 ms·

The ethical codes are extremely important, that's not my point. I'm saying we are taught the results are correct, when, due to the impossibility of reproductio

by scoofy 5y ago

The ethical codes are extremely important, that's not my point. I'm saying we are taught the results are correct, when, due to the impossibility of reproduction we can't know whether the results are correct or incorrect. What should be discussed in the Milgram experiment is "we can't know the results of the experiment because one of the subjects killed themselves due to their participation. Try to consider the ethical implications, don't design experiments that might lead to psychological trauma, etc." The idea that the results being true is why we shouldn't do the experiment is wrong to do, is nonsense, because we can't know whether the results are true because can't replicate the experiment. Yet, it's results are published as a pop-science book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience_to_Authority:_An_Experimental_View https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience_to_Authority:_An_Exp... Instead, these two studies if their findings, not the ethics, are discussed at all, are a perfect illustration of the problems that Karl Popper discusses regarding falsifiability.

JetAlone 5y ago
I think one of the subjects killed themselves due to participation because of the deep inner tension caused by our struggles with obedience versus conscience. The results of the studies bear that out - people largely obey authority unto causing serious harm, that's what the studies tell us, and it's not an inordinate stretch to say that this dissonance causes a person to feel an urge to commit suicide such that, if few people obeyed authority giving malicious orders, they would feel little dissonance and would be way less likely to off themselves. And that's the connection between the results and the ethics. It may not be awfully scientific of me, but I'd yell you out of the quietest room on earth for trying to claim the results have no bearing on that.
- scoofy 5y ago
  "We can't know the results because we can't repeat the experiment," is exactly what I'd yell right back. Repeatability is required for falsifiability, and falsifiablity is required for empirical knowledge, period.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Then run the experiments again in secret. Find people who are so passionate about your epistemological model they are willing to take the risk of renegade experiments on themselves. That would be an actual adventure, much better than roleplaying a yelling match at each other in comments sections. EDIT: Hell, pretend play is for weaklings, I'll be your confederate jumbo-dumbo test taker faker, and let's go a step beyond the original experiment, let's have me actually suffer serious shocks in our Milgram Repro, for your n >= 30 guineau pigs to see. Then we'll know even better and that can be the new standard. And I'll be your confederate convict prime, set aside in especially horrible solitary confinement conditions for the Stanford Prison Repro. And when you watch me and others actually suffer horribly for days on end due to your decisions, I'm sure you'll simply have zero suicidal ideation, and you'll repeat your "we can't know!!!11!!1" drivel.
    - kinjba11 5y ago
      The Stanford Prison experiment was theater. Milgram was only slightly better. Never mind being unethical, they are just poor science. This is the core of the replication crisis in psychology: theatrical, grandiose claims get all the attention and people leap through hoops to defend them. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin... https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    Repeatable and repeated are not the same thing. The Milgram experiment is repeatable in principle. It is falsifiable. The reasons to doubt the claimed results are not because we can't do it again, but because of the details of how it was done. We also should not do it again.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    It's like saying that we can't know whether parachutes reduce injuries when falling from airplanes because we've never had a proper experiment to verify this and most likely won't ever run one. We can know all kinds of things with a reasonable degree of certainty even if we can't or won't verify them experimentally.
zenithd 5y ago

by scoofy 5y ago

JetAlone 5y ago

I think one of the subjects killed themselves due to participation because of the deep inner tension caused by our struggles with obedience versus conscience. The results of the studies bear that out - people largely obey authority unto causing serious harm, that's what the studies tell us, and it's not an inordinate stretch to say that this dissonance causes a person to feel an urge to commit suicide such that, if few people obeyed authority giving malicious orders, they would feel little dissonance and would be way less likely to off themselves. And that's the connection between the results and the ethics. It may not be awfully scientific of me, but I'd yell you out of the quietest room on earth for trying to claim the results have no bearing on that.

scoofy 5y ago
"We can't know the results because we can't repeat the experiment," is exactly what I'd yell right back. Repeatability is required for falsifiability, and falsifiablity is required for empirical knowledge, period.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Then run the experiments again in secret. Find people who are so passionate about your epistemological model they are willing to take the risk of renegade experiments on themselves. That would be an actual adventure, much better than roleplaying a yelling match at each other in comments sections. EDIT: Hell, pretend play is for weaklings, I'll be your confederate jumbo-dumbo test taker faker, and let's go a step beyond the original experiment, let's have me actually suffer serious shocks in our Milgram Repro, for your n >= 30 guineau pigs to see. Then we'll know even better and that can be the new standard. And I'll be your confederate convict prime, set aside in especially horrible solitary confinement conditions for the Stanford Prison Repro. And when you watch me and others actually suffer horribly for days on end due to your decisions, I'm sure you'll simply have zero suicidal ideation, and you'll repeat your "we can't know!!!11!!1" drivel.
  - kinjba11 5y ago
    The Stanford Prison experiment was theater. Milgram was only slightly better. Never mind being unethical, they are just poor science. This is the core of the replication crisis in psychology: theatrical, grandiose claims get all the attention and people leap through hoops to defend them. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin... https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  Repeatable and repeated are not the same thing. The Milgram experiment is repeatable in principle. It is falsifiable. The reasons to doubt the claimed results are not because we can't do it again, but because of the details of how it was done. We also should not do it again.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  It's like saying that we can't know whether parachutes reduce injuries when falling from airplanes because we've never had a proper experiment to verify this and most likely won't ever run one. We can know all kinds of things with a reasonable degree of certainty even if we can't or won't verify them experimentally.

zenithd 5y ago