4 ms·

"Academic rigor," especially in these social science studies, has usually come to mean "fraud" or at best "bad methodology". Search "Reproducibility Crisis", "

"Academic rigor," especially in these social science studies, has usually come to mean "fraud" or at best "bad methodology". Search "Reproducibility Crisis", "Dan Ariely" or "scientific fraud" and you should get the jist of why you shouldn't trust many headlines for new discoveries right now. Especially "surprising" results that go against expectations https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03486-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03486-5 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-d...

ttyprintk 3y ago
This is not my field, but I remember that article as completely undermining your claim that “academic rigor” “usually” implies “fraud”. My take on the replication problem (I’m not a social scientist) is that we now think the original experiments missed a confounding factor out of ignorance or lack of statistical sophistication. This is not how Ariely and Gino were caught, though. I wouldn’t call their research surprising at all (again, not my field), but their randomization failed. Replication should have found a different level of support and introduced skepticism of the rigor of their methodology.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  >usually come to mean "fraud" or at best "bad methodology". It's what I originally wrote. Good job cherry picking. You sure this isn't your field?
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    Ok, so my take on the Nature article that it painted a rosy picture of today’s dispersed research teams mutually verifying each others results. Is your argument that the bad-old days still taint modern methods?
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
'headlines' are not the 'result's. You should always take media 'headlines' about science with a grain of salt. Not just for social sciences, but for dark matter, string theory, everything. The replication crisis is bit overblown because the 'right' want to use that to drive their own more 'biblical' view of the world. By sowing doubt about all science, like done with cigarettes. Social sciences do replicate at rate over 50%. That is long way from nothing replicating. Sorry 50% isn't good enough, it isn't like string theory is replicating, and nobody is getting out pitch forks. another take https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replicat...
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  It should be noted the ‘left’ also wants to use this in order to drive their own worldviews. They are both sides of the same coin after all.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    False equivalence. The Left has an agenda, sure. The Right believe they are gods chosen and are fighting a holy war. The Right believe they are being directed by GOD. Their soul will be tortured for all eternity if they don't fight a war on earth following the will of God. How do you argue a factual point with someone that is basing their decision on being directed by the god of the entire universe. Basically the modern Christian Right, is fighting their own Jihad. We just don't have a good word like that to describe it. So, I would disagree they are two sides of the same coin. The left is maybe skewing some statistics, while the Right is ready to kill people for their god (checkout how many mass shootings are based on Right Talking points).

ttyprintk 3y ago

This is not my field, but I remember that article as completely undermining your claim that “academic rigor” “usually” implies “fraud”. My take on the replication problem (I’m not a social scientist) is that we now think the original experiments missed a confounding factor out of ignorance or lack of statistical sophistication. This is not how Ariely and Gino were caught, though. I wouldn’t call their research surprising at all (again, not my field), but their randomization failed. Replication should have found a different level of support and introduced skepticism of the rigor of their methodology.

passwordoops 3y ago
>usually come to mean "fraud" or at best "bad methodology". It's what I originally wrote. Good job cherry picking. You sure this isn't your field?
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  Ok, so my take on the Nature article that it painted a rosy picture of today’s dispersed research teams mutually verifying each others results. Is your argument that the bad-old days still taint modern methods?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

'headlines' are not the 'result's. You should always take media 'headlines' about science with a grain of salt. Not just for social sciences, but for dark matter, string theory, everything. The replication crisis is bit overblown because the 'right' want to use that to drive their own more 'biblical' view of the world. By sowing doubt about all science, like done with cigarettes. Social sciences do replicate at rate over 50%. That is long way from nothing replicating. Sorry 50% isn't good enough, it isn't like string theory is replicating, and nobody is getting out pitch forks. another take https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replicat...

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
It should be noted the ‘left’ also wants to use this in order to drive their own worldviews. They are both sides of the same coin after all.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  False equivalence. The Left has an agenda, sure. The Right believe they are gods chosen and are fighting a holy war. The Right believe they are being directed by GOD. Their soul will be tortured for all eternity if they don't fight a war on earth following the will of God. How do you argue a factual point with someone that is basing their decision on being directed by the god of the entire universe. Basically the modern Christian Right, is fighting their own Jihad. We just don't have a good word like that to describe it. So, I would disagree they are two sides of the same coin. The left is maybe skewing some statistics, while the Right is ready to kill people for their god (checkout how many mass shootings are based on Right Talking points).