8 ms·

I think social scientists have lost the right to the benefit of the doubt. They don't preregister their trials. They don't publish their negative results. They'

I think social scientists have lost the right to the benefit of the doubt. They don't preregister their trials. They don't publish their negative results. They're notoriously bad at statistics, notoriously let their political beliefs distort their conclusions, notoriously scatter their work over thousands of arbitrary, hard-to-compare small-sample-size studies instead of concentrating their resources. I don't think it matters if this criticism is right or not. The fact that it's even possible to make such a criticism is already a condemnation of the scientific incompetence of social scientists.

TameAntelope 4y ago
> I don't think it matters if this criticism is right or not. Okay, you and I care about very different things.
- harry8 4y ago
  >> I don't think it matters if this criticism is right or not. > Okay, you and I care about very different things. Clearly it is being suggested that it doesn't matter with respect to the social studies departments being in dire need of drastic reform. If you don't care about that either direction why are you commenting on this thread? You do actually care one way and you're "point scoring" to further the argument? Something else? I'm misreading something that I think I'm reading clearly?
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    Hm? I just think it matters if the letter (the original submission) is correct or not.
    - harry8 4y ago
      So are social studies departments and funding in dire need of reform in your opinion? How does the "correctness" in your view of the original submission affect that need or non-need?
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
        Not sure I know enough to have an opinion about that; what I've been commenting about is the "nudge is dead" attitude that I don't think is warranted.
        harry8 4y ago
        and yet here you are responding in a thread with the conclusion clearly stated: >means it’s past time to reform a large chunk of academia. And you're taking exception to it, but now just claiming you're actually not, that these one sentence "you're wrong" responses are really something much more modest. Out of interest do you work in the field? Have ties as a graduate to one of the departments? Or are you completely disinterested when assessing the research? If I have an interest it's that quality research is performed that advances human knowledge with some kind of efficiency of the resources spend. ie fund something that is being done properly and well to some effect over something that has been shown to be run by those who seem to be utterly incompetent or fraudulent shysters or something else that engenders zero confidence. https://www.google.com/search?q=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmodeling.stat.columbia.edu&oq=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmodeling.stat.columbia.edu https://www.google.com/search?q=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmod...
        unityByFreedom 4y ago
        > past time to reform a large chunk of academia >> And you're taking exception to it TameAntelope was addressing premises to that conclusionary comment. If the premises do not hold, then TameAntelope does not need to address that conclusion.
        harry8 4y ago
        >If the premises do not hold But they do tho' /tips hat to TameAntelope's style
        unityByFreedom 4y ago
unityByFreedom 4y ago
> They don't preregister their trials. First of all, preregistration is not a requirement for the scientific method, which has functioned well for centuries. That is a recent trend in response to the overflowing amount of haphazardly published science. Second, it is up to the individual scientist to decide to preregister or not. Some social scientists may preregister. Third, small sample size may be a fair critique, however that overlooks how difficult it is to collect such data. You've made a lot of generalizations here that amount to, "social scientists aren't as rigorous as other areas of science, therefore we should only believe studies that disagree with their results". I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful. You can take results of studies with small sample sizes with a grain of salt, watch for replication, etc. Lambasting the field as a whole doesn't make sense to me. Finally, readers should note that this isn't a new argument. People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > You've made a lot of generalizations here that amount to, "social scientists aren't as rigorous as other areas of science, therefore we should only believe studies that disagree with their results". I think it’s more “ignore them completely.” It brings “science” into disrepute to let social science associate with the other sciences. > I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful. There is no baby! > People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing. Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today.
  - unityByFreedom 4y ago
    > It brings “science” into disrepute to let social science associate with the other sciences. So you just want it renamed to "social studies" or what? What is your proposal, that nobody research this topic, or that they be separated in journals etc? I doubt that will have much impact on whether it makes the news. If you want that to change, you may need to get yourself onto the board of a journal you care about. > There is no baby! That's reductive. Just because you don't see the baby doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today. No, it just proves it's an old disagreement, like nature vs nurture. There is plenty of work in social science that contributes to humanity. It will always have smaller sample sizes due to the nature of collecting the data. The work can be considered useful nonetheless.

TameAntelope 4y ago

> I don't think it matters if this criticism is right or not. Okay, you and I care about very different things.

harry8 4y ago
>> I don't think it matters if this criticism is right or not. > Okay, you and I care about very different things. Clearly it is being suggested that it doesn't matter with respect to the social studies departments being in dire need of drastic reform. If you don't care about that either direction why are you commenting on this thread? You do actually care one way and you're "point scoring" to further the argument? Something else? I'm misreading something that I think I'm reading clearly?
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  Hm? I just think it matters if the letter (the original submission) is correct or not.
  - harry8 4y ago
    So are social studies departments and funding in dire need of reform in your opinion? How does the "correctness" in your view of the original submission affect that need or non-need?
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      Not sure I know enough to have an opinion about that; what I've been commenting about is the "nudge is dead" attitude that I don't think is warranted.
      - harry8 4y ago
        and yet here you are responding in a thread with the conclusion clearly stated: >means it’s past time to reform a large chunk of academia. And you're taking exception to it, but now just claiming you're actually not, that these one sentence "you're wrong" responses are really something much more modest. Out of interest do you work in the field? Have ties as a graduate to one of the departments? Or are you completely disinterested when assessing the research? If I have an interest it's that quality research is performed that advances human knowledge with some kind of efficiency of the resources spend. ie fund something that is being done properly and well to some effect over something that has been shown to be run by those who seem to be utterly incompetent or fraudulent shysters or something else that engenders zero confidence. https://www.google.com/search?q=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmodeling.stat.columbia.edu&oq=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmodeling.stat.columbia.edu https://www.google.com/search?q=cass+sunstein+site%3Astatmod...
        unityByFreedom 4y ago
        > past time to reform a large chunk of academia >> And you're taking exception to it TameAntelope was addressing premises to that conclusionary comment. If the premises do not hold, then TameAntelope does not need to address that conclusion.
        harry8 4y ago
        >If the premises do not hold But they do tho' /tips hat to TameAntelope's style
        unityByFreedom 4y ago

unityByFreedom 4y ago

> They don't preregister their trials. First of all, preregistration is not a requirement for the scientific method, which has functioned well for centuries. That is a recent trend in response to the overflowing amount of haphazardly published science. Second, it is up to the individual scientist to decide to preregister or not. Some social scientists may preregister. Third, small sample size may be a fair critique, however that overlooks how difficult it is to collect such data. You've made a lot of generalizations here that amount to, "social scientists aren't as rigorous as other areas of science, therefore we should only believe studies that disagree with their results". I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful. You can take results of studies with small sample sizes with a grain of salt, watch for replication, etc. Lambasting the field as a whole doesn't make sense to me. Finally, readers should note that this isn't a new argument. People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing.

rayiner 4y ago
> You've made a lot of generalizations here that amount to, "social scientists aren't as rigorous as other areas of science, therefore we should only believe studies that disagree with their results". I think it’s more “ignore them completely.” It brings “science” into disrepute to let social science associate with the other sciences. > I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful. There is no baby! > People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing. Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today.
- unityByFreedom 4y ago
  > It brings “science” into disrepute to let social science associate with the other sciences. So you just want it renamed to "social studies" or what? What is your proposal, that nobody research this topic, or that they be separated in journals etc? I doubt that will have much impact on whether it makes the news. If you want that to change, you may need to get yourself onto the board of a journal you care about. > There is no baby! That's reductive. Just because you don't see the baby doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today. No, it just proves it's an old disagreement, like nature vs nurture. There is plenty of work in social science that contributes to humanity. It will always have smaller sample sizes due to the nature of collecting the data. The work can be considered useful nonetheless.