6 ms·

Labelling a term of art as "dubious science" by looking at the effect of its broad and uninformed general application outside of its field of study is dubious a

• thereisnospork 4y ago
  How many social sciences aren't 'dubious at best' though? Even studies of things that are concretely defined and measurable (e.g. all-cause mortality) are fraught with dubiousness.
• readthenotes1 4y ago
  It's psychology and sociology. It is dubious science at best. No additional specific examples are needed. (Of course, we may differ on what makes science good science. For me, the ability to repeat an experimental result is essential to good science. Profiting from the results of your research generally seems to lead to bad science)
  • AlotOfReading 4y ago
    Look, there's over a hundred years of positivist theory in the social sciences. Durkheim, the guy who founded the discipline of Sociology, was a hardcore positivist whose primary interest was in replicable 'social facts'. Why is more of the same the answer to the replication crisis?
    • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      > Look, there's over a hundred years of positivist theory in the social sciences. Therefore... what? What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? That sociology has lived up to the standards of positivism? That it hasn't? That we should therefore find sociology to be trustworthy? That we shouldn't? What point are you trying to make? Asking honestly, because I can't tell.
      • AlotOfReading 4y ago
        I think most people (including GP) would agree that sociology and psychology have not lived up to the standards of positivism, hence the replication crisis. But if you think those fields are dubious sciences as GP suggests, it seems strange to suggest fixing those fundamental methodological issues by doubling down on an already-dominant paradigm that contributed to them.
        • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
          Ah, I see. That makes the post much more understandable. Thank you. But from my (admittedly very outside) perspective, sociology and psychology don't look anything like positivism. They look like... I don't know what to call what they look like, but positivism ain't it. Maybe actual positivism could help them. On the other hand, if they think that's what they've been doing for the last century, then telling them to do it isn't going to get them to real positivism... Note well: I think positivism is a philosophy that failed because it was mistaken. I am not a supporter or a fan. But I think that sociology has really failed to come anywhere near what positivism would call for.
          • AlotOfReading 4y ago
            I agree that they never really achieved the sort of replicability reached in other sciences. In perfect honesty, positivism is a bit old-fashioned in sociology (as I understand it secondhand). Like Archaeology/Anthropology (my field), most of the social sciences moved beyond positivism beginning in the 80s because of its many flaws and you'll find few strict adherents today. What replaced it was usually methodological pluralism in North America, but other places sometimes developed differently. But I try to know my audience a bit and sometimes simplify certain things on HN to avoid arguments and conversational detours. Discussing things like postmodernism tends to get sidetracked and that's inherently necessary context, so... Modern sociology is fairly quantitative and data-driven though. I think a lot of people would be surprised.