3 ms·
I think there are a lot of social-science topics, where claims are made that are supposedly "backed by science", but looking into that yields stuff less solid,
by Chris2048 4y ago
I think there are a lot of social-science topics, where claims are made that are supposedly "backed by science", but looking into that yields stuff less solid,
such as dubious methods, lack of replication or claims based on surveys or non-academic studies, inappropriate or overreaching conclusions e.g. specificities derived from generalizations, etc.
I think the clearest example is IAT (implicit bias testing), which has dubious foundations, but seems to have taken off as a "scientific" thing, at least in the corporate world. Sometimes accompanied by a motte-and-bailey where the results of the test, and the correct conclusions of the results, are left vague; or what a "bias" is left undefined so you can easily be lead to believe it equates to e.g. racism.
- dekhn 4y agoI'm not including social science, sorry, I should have pointed that out. I am including physics (excluding string theory), chemistry and biology; all quantitative things with falsifiable experiments. I agree entirely that social science news reporting is crap. I should have been much clearer about that.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI think you highlighted it though. There is a spectrum of science. In the middle there are the hard verifiable objective things. And on the ends are subjective or unprovable theories. The goal is to increase that middle band over time. Science, scientific papers, scientists, universities have always been subject to weaponizing in the past. Tell me... Are eggs good for you or not?