4 ms·

Let me address the researcher bias issue. "pro-education researchers have incentives to find schooling is essential" why? Researches may work for a private comp

Let me address the researcher bias issue. "pro-education researchers have incentives to find schooling is essential" why? Researches may work for a private company or a college. Are all the researchers elementary school teachers? Either way, a possible motive isn't sufficient evidence of bias. Of the studies that countered him he only says he's confused by one but doesn't go in detail. Instead making it seem like the study is fluff by providing an inner monolog showing how confused he was. Similar example. I'm reviewing a complex hand tool and say about its use- "you turn it right to tighten but left to tighten, i dunno maybe I don't get it, let's move on" To some people reading the implication is that the hand tool doesn't work,is wrong, or confusing to use. If he has mistrust why not attempt to prove one or more of the studies were fake, used inaccurate data, or came to the wrong conclusions based on the data? Because by simply mentioning the mistrust and bias, AT BEFORE he even discusses the counter arguments, WHILE ONLY providing potential motive as evidence, he manipulates the reader by leaving a bad taste. Why even mention your mistrust at all? How is that useful in this scholarly article when you don't offer proof? In my opinion manipulation The more I think about this article the more it just feels like someone so determined to prove his theory instead of using the proper scientific method and being open minded.

naasking 4y ago
> Let me address the researcher bias issue. "pro-education researchers have incentives to find schooling is essential" why? Because their research is all about the importance of education. It's like asking whether a pharmaceutical company would strive to publish negative results of their drugs; generally, not if they can avoid it! This is why recent pushes for open data and pre-registration are so important. > If he has mistrust why not attempt to prove one or more of the studies were fake, used inaccurate data, or came to the wrong conclusions based on the data? Because that's not the goal of the post. The goal here was to develop a general, informed opinion on a topic by performing a broad review of the state of evidence. Misinterpreting or dismissing one study here or there will not change the conclusion much: if there are strong signals in the data then other studies will surely show it, and if there are no strong signals, then you won't know to trust this one study over the others which found no such signal. > Because by simply mentioning the mistrust and bias, AT BEFORE he even discusses the counter arguments, WHILE ONLY providing potential motive as evidence He doesn't provide only motive as evidence, the other studies that dispute the "huge effects" that education researchers seem to find are evidence that these huge effects are not real, hence the suspicion. The whole post to the point where he starts discussing this literature consists of a boatload of evidence that should make you skeptical of those studies. > Why even mention your mistrust at all? How is that useful in this scholarly article when you don't offer proof? I'm not sure what sort of "scholarly article" you think this is, or what that term means to you. Hopefully my elaboration above cleared this up. This hand-wringing over one study is just an indication that the evidence is simply not that strong. I think Scott looked into this with an open mind, as he usually does, but the evidence is simply not that convincing. For low income kids public education is a huge win, probably mostly due to the structure and safe environment it provides, but the evidence for its educational value is just poor.

naasking 4y ago

> Let me address the researcher bias issue. "pro-education researchers have incentives to find schooling is essential" why? Because their research is all about the importance of education. It's like asking whether a pharmaceutical company would strive to publish negative results of their drugs; generally, not if they can avoid it! This is why recent pushes for open data and pre-registration are so important. > If he has mistrust why not attempt to prove one or more of the studies were fake, used inaccurate data, or came to the wrong conclusions based on the data? Because that's not the goal of the post. The goal here was to develop a general, informed opinion on a topic by performing a broad review of the state of evidence. Misinterpreting or dismissing one study here or there will not change the conclusion much: if there are strong signals in the data then other studies will surely show it, and if there are no strong signals, then you won't know to trust this one study over the others which found no such signal. > Because by simply mentioning the mistrust and bias, AT BEFORE he even discusses the counter arguments, WHILE ONLY providing potential motive as evidence He doesn't provide only motive as evidence, the other studies that dispute the "huge effects" that education researchers seem to find are evidence that these huge effects are not real, hence the suspicion. The whole post to the point where he starts discussing this literature consists of a boatload of evidence that should make you skeptical of those studies. > Why even mention your mistrust at all? How is that useful in this scholarly article when you don't offer proof? I'm not sure what sort of "scholarly article" you think this is, or what that term means to you. Hopefully my elaboration above cleared this up. This hand-wringing over one study is just an indication that the evidence is simply not that strong. I think Scott looked into this with an open mind, as he usually does, but the evidence is simply not that convincing. For low income kids public education is a huge win, probably mostly due to the structure and safe environment it provides, but the evidence for its educational value is just poor.