3 ms·

It specifically illustrates my last point. The field is filled with ideological zealots who put our bogus propaganda to further their ideology. More in common w

• temp8964 5y ago
  As I told you "social sciences" is not a field. It is many fields. The average 20%~30% is a product of some toxic fields with 90%~100% nuts and some fields with 50%~60% nuts to some fields with 0~5% nuts.
  • iratewizard 5y ago
    Sure, but what you said above is compete bullshit. The non-specific "efforts" to improve "quantitative measures" haven't pulled any of the social sciences out of the reproducibility crisis. What's the best of social science's reproducibility rate? 20%?
• LordDragonfang 5y ago
  It does not. There is no inherent property of Marxism that causes one to be more likely to publish "bogus propaganda". Indeed, we can demonstrate evidence of the exact opposite, with the bevy of bogus corporate-funded studies (the tobacco industry is particularly notorious for this, but is by no means the only one). You are making a non-objective argument in bad faith to grind your axe. The issue instead is that conclusively studying human behavior is hard, and effect size is often small, and it's inherently impossible to control for conflating factors.
  • iratewizard 5y ago
    > There is no inherent property of Marxism that causes one to be more likely to publish "bogus propaganda" Cult ideologies have no inherent properties that would cause the same, and yet no sane person would expect cult members not to shill for your their cult. Corporate shilling doesn't prove the opposite. It proves how easy it is to game soft science.