3 ms·

It calls for greater humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings. Hmmm, I think the variance in results is maybe a bit more of an issue in the softer

It calls for greater humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings. Hmmm, I think the variance in results is maybe a bit more of an issue in the softer sciences and the conclusions would be better worded to reflect that considering the context here, rather than implying they hold to a similar extent over science generally. There is no doubt human failings also challenge physics etc (see previous threads here) and humility and clarity is appropriate there also, but the significant problems highlighted in this study seem more particular to areas of research that have long been regarded as less sure due to the nature of their domain.

macintux 4y ago
Agreed, this seems like they chose a hypothesis destined to be forever unprovable. > they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public.
- et1337 4y ago
  Their chosen hypothesis doesn’t seem any more unprovable than the countless other “study says” headlines I see every day, even here on HN.
- scotty79 4y ago
  The fact that they got different numerical results from the same data and the difference wasn't explained by the choice of statistical tools the applied us very concering. I interpret it to mean that different researchers applied same math to same data and got different results.
uniqueuid 4y ago
Personally, I prefer the term science of soft reality. After all, the science is as hard as it can be, it's the object of investigation that's fuzzy and shifting and actively refusing to be measured ;)
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  Does the term 'soft reality' make sense though? I don't subscribe to realism or materialism, but I understand the instinct to reduce the universe to just the measurable parts if the alternative is that the scientific method doesn't work at all. Granted, real science has error bars and there's no upper limit to how big those could get in theory, but in practice there's an upper limit to where a scientific approach is better than just crafting a compelling narrative.
mvcalder 4y ago
That's an unscientific conclusion. They say the effect (of high variation) is unattributable, so it's unfair to limit it to soft sciences. This could infect literally any human endeavor that generates measurements, hard sciences included. Or, as another poster observes, this result itself is affected by high variation and we end up in a Godel-ian loop of "this study is false" results.

macintux 4y ago

Agreed, this seems like they chose a hypothesis destined to be forever unprovable. > they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public.

et1337 4y ago
Their chosen hypothesis doesn’t seem any more unprovable than the countless other “study says” headlines I see every day, even here on HN.
scotty79 4y ago
The fact that they got different numerical results from the same data and the difference wasn't explained by the choice of statistical tools the applied us very concering. I interpret it to mean that different researchers applied same math to same data and got different results.

uniqueuid 4y ago

Personally, I prefer the term science of soft reality. After all, the science is as hard as it can be, it's the object of investigation that's fuzzy and shifting and actively refusing to be measured ;)

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
Does the term 'soft reality' make sense though? I don't subscribe to realism or materialism, but I understand the instinct to reduce the universe to just the measurable parts if the alternative is that the scientific method doesn't work at all. Granted, real science has error bars and there's no upper limit to how big those could get in theory, but in practice there's an upper limit to where a scientific approach is better than just crafting a compelling narrative.

mvcalder 4y ago

That's an unscientific conclusion. They say the effect (of high variation) is unattributable, so it's unfair to limit it to soft sciences. This could infect literally any human endeavor that generates measurements, hard sciences included. Or, as another poster observes, this result itself is affected by high variation and we end up in a Godel-ian loop of "this study is false" results.