3 ms·
I haven’t, but really even if it does make an excessively bold claim, it’s definitely a replication failure but I’m still of the belief that it’s not useful to
by ethanbond 4y ago
I haven’t, but really even if it does make an excessively bold claim, it’s definitely a replication failure but I’m still of the belief that it’s not useful to frame that as “replication crisis.”
Newton’s failure to account for near-light speed movement - and the rest of physics knowledge - doesn’t really warrant “replication crisis.” It’s just “more science” that’s refining our understanding.
My issue with replication crisis framing is that in my experience it leads people to believe the softer sciences are irredeemable. Not only is the “crisis” not limited to softer sciences, but it’s really not a crisis. As we go up the entropic chain (physics -> chem -> bio -> socio etc), we can expect that understanding all of the relevant variables will get harder and harder and harder. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue trying, and it doesn’t point to another route to knowledge other than continuing to try.
- snapplebobapple 4y agoThe difference would be that with Newton his results applied to pretty much all observable situations and only when our observation ability improved did we discover problems where his work wouldn't replicate and we had to tighten the specification of what his work applied to. In this regard you could also call the problem in the social sciences a specification crisis because their claims don't hold up over the wide group they attempt to apply them to in the results discussion (I would argue far too often they don't apply beyond the x people in the study, but that's open for debate). I agree, we shouldn't stop trying. We do, however, need to be aware of the things we are doing to be utter failures and correct them, otherwise nothing will come from trying.
- ethanbond 4y agoAgreed on all points :)