3 ms·
Science in the context of politically charged topics generally disgusts me. The outcome, that is. In theory it could help things, but it never does. The authors
by comfypotato 3y ago
Science in the context of politically charged topics generally disgusts me. The outcome, that is. In theory it could help things, but it never does. The authors’ personal beliefs interfere every time. From the conception of their idea, to the research, to the decision to publish the results. By the time we read it, it’s no different than a biased news article. Only the intellectual level at which the biases/beliefs are presented differs.
This particular paper is no different. Sure, people are born into different economic conditions. This is obvious. Beyond that, there’s nothing useful to see in the research.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoCurious, what are some of the best social science papers and some of the worst social science papers in your opinion?
- photonthug 3y agoI don't think you need to look far to find bad papers, but for good ones doing "real science", I would maybe look for psych stuff that's next door to economics? Kahneman comes to mind
- comfypotato 3y agoAs someone else said, Kahneman is OK. He certainly has some brain-tickling research. I’ve read some papers by him about how people use poor logic in decision-making that were truly fascinating. There are countless bad papers. If you lean left, I could show you papers that declare no racial bias in police use of lethal force. If you lean right, I could show you papers that declare no correlation between conservative policy and economic growth.
- bdw5204 3y agoThe thing that's really interesting to me is how "science" has arguably turned into what it was originally against. Originally, science outright rejected the ideas of specialization and credentialism. And it was founded on opposition to the "scientific consensus" that was enforced by groups like the Catholic Church (though, contrary to popular misconception, it wasn't hostile to religion and in fact scientists like Newton also were interested in trying to reconcile the Bible with the discoveries of science). So much of what passes for "science" today consists of outright logical fallacies like the appeal to authority and the appeal to consensus. And the peer review process is often flawed with self interested reviewers using the process to demand citations to their own work or block papers they disagree with. On any politically sensitive topic, I don't trust any "peer reviewed research" unless I can plausibly answer yes to the following question: "If this paper found the opposite result, would it be published?" Often, the answer is that a paper finding the opposite result would be career ending for the author. Which means there is no disinterested search for truth on that topic and papers on it are just dogma masquerading as science.
- germandiago 3y agoThis is also my opinion.
- 8bitsrule 3y agoI upvoted the first 2 para's of this reply. Now, as to this old saw: >there is no disinterested search for truth In studying the history of science, I've seen that: what the word 'scientist' means has changed a great deal in the past two centuries (since the more generalist 'natural philosophers'). Also that: for most of that time it has never been a disinterested search (let alone 'for truth' ... a word as undefinable as 'god'). Prime example: The existence of rocks falling from the sky was rejected by the faithful simply because Newton said space is -empty-. (There are hundreds more salient examples.) The rise of specializations is like the rise of Guilds; inevitable for multiple practical reasons. (Recently I tried to read a paper on Paleoneurobiology. Nope, not going there.)