4 ms·
You've just eliminated all social sciences, by your metric of "reliably". edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science. edit2: yo
by slothtrop 4y ago
You've just eliminated all social sciences, by your metric of "reliably".
edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science.
edit2: you all forgot that medical and nutritional science has a reproducibility crisis, it's no less "science" for it. Add to the fact, the notion that nothing is reproducible in Economics is false. See for example: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experiment-reproduced-thousands-times https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experime... , https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918
- ur-whale 4y ago> You've just eliminated all social sciences Because they're indeed not sciences. They call themselves that to attract funding. Predictive power and reproducibility are defining characteristics of sciences. Social "sciences" have neither and therefore aren't sciences.
- guerrilla 4y agoAbsolutely. > edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science. No thanks.
- slothtrop 4y agoreproducibility has improved over time as well - https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350