3 ms·

It's popular here (and in other more "technically" inclined communities) to dunk on the "soft sciences", but the hard sciences also had their share of fraud cas

It's popular here (and in other more "technically" inclined communities) to dunk on the "soft sciences", but the hard sciences also had their share of fraud cases (the Schön revelations being some of the most prominent). The discovery of Schön's fraud also didn't lead to theories suddenly being rewritten. This is simply a misunderstanding of how science works and the contribution/impact of a single scientist. In the end sure some minor directions will be impacted, people will see conclusions still hold, but overall theories will only marginally be impacted. Something only becomes well accepted theory if it can be reproduced again and again, fraud will come out eventually. That is the beauty of the scientific process.

lofatdairy 3y ago
Definitely agree that this is not just a psychology issue[^1]. I'm not quite as optimistic about the implications, however. The way academia operates is very trust heavy. This makes sense, no lab can be experts in all fields of study, and perform every experiment themselves. If something doesn't work for you, the default assumption is that something in your system is incompatible with the previous work, or you're just doing something wrong. So sometimes it takes quite a concerted effort to identify bad science, because legitimate work can be nudged towards supporting + compatible with this bad science. You basically have no choice but to have basis in what is widely believed to be true if you want grant funding or papers published. From a purely theoretical/knowledge standpoint, I think I agree - the truth will eventually be accepted. But in fields like biology, this can be at the cost of drugs not working, actually promising avenues not explored, wasted resources - tangible harms. [^1]: E.g. the recent Alzheimer's controversy, Stanford's president scandal, 5-HTTLPR, etc. Ironically, Ronald Fisher argues that Gregor Mendel's work, the foundation of modern biology, to be essentially fraudulent despite being correct.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Ironically, Ronald Fisher argues that Gregor Mendel's work, the foundation of modern biology, to be essentially fraudulent despite being correct. There's nothing weird about that. You'll see exactly the same phenomenon by going through a low-level mathematics textbooks and noticing how many of the problems have small integer solutions. Does that happen in real problems? No. Does the fact that all the problems are fraudulent mean that the math they're meant to teach you is wrong? No. The math is right; that's why the problems were written up the way they were.
graphe 3y ago
The soft "sciences" aren't science if they aren't reproducible. That's why the schon revelations was easily discovered. Recently there was a trend of a published room temperature semiconductor, neither was theoretical. Psychology is worst than useless. It is fraudulent. It is religion except backed by non reproductive "science". None of the theories matter because they have no real world function except to replace religion, which would serve the same purpose anyway. Your idea didn't work to help anyone. Did it hurt anyone? How will we know? You can be trusted again. Your bridge collapsed? Who will trust you again, ever to make a bridge?

lofatdairy 3y ago

Definitely agree that this is not just a psychology issue[^1]. I'm not quite as optimistic about the implications, however. The way academia operates is very trust heavy. This makes sense, no lab can be experts in all fields of study, and perform every experiment themselves. If something doesn't work for you, the default assumption is that something in your system is incompatible with the previous work, or you're just doing something wrong. So sometimes it takes quite a concerted effort to identify bad science, because legitimate work can be nudged towards supporting + compatible with this bad science. You basically have no choice but to have basis in what is widely believed to be true if you want grant funding or papers published. From a purely theoretical/knowledge standpoint, I think I agree - the truth will eventually be accepted. But in fields like biology, this can be at the cost of drugs not working, actually promising avenues not explored, wasted resources - tangible harms. [^1]: E.g. the recent Alzheimer's controversy, Stanford's president scandal, 5-HTTLPR, etc. Ironically, Ronald Fisher argues that Gregor Mendel's work, the foundation of modern biology, to be essentially fraudulent despite being correct.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Ironically, Ronald Fisher argues that Gregor Mendel's work, the foundation of modern biology, to be essentially fraudulent despite being correct. There's nothing weird about that. You'll see exactly the same phenomenon by going through a low-level mathematics textbooks and noticing how many of the problems have small integer solutions. Does that happen in real problems? No. Does the fact that all the problems are fraudulent mean that the math they're meant to teach you is wrong? No. The math is right; that's why the problems were written up the way they were.

graphe 3y ago

The soft "sciences" aren't science if they aren't reproducible. That's why the schon revelations was easily discovered. Recently there was a trend of a published room temperature semiconductor, neither was theoretical. Psychology is worst than useless. It is fraudulent. It is religion except backed by non reproductive "science". None of the theories matter because they have no real world function except to replace religion, which would serve the same purpose anyway. Your idea didn't work to help anyone. Did it hurt anyone? How will we know? You can be trusted again. Your bridge collapsed? Who will trust you again, ever to make a bridge?