4 ms·

Is Psychological Science Self-Correcting?

7 points by EndXA 3y ago

scarmig 3y ago
My main complaint about this: anyone paying attention knows that psychological "sciences" are deeply troubled fields at best. What I want to see is something like this study performed against what we think of as real sciences. Is the replication crisis universal, or is it localized?
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  The article within mentions, among other fields, non replicability in cancer research. I recall reading a few years ago about the inability to replicate computer science papers. You have probably heard about the Harvard professor who specializes in dishonesty being caught out for fabricating results (not the one caught out for plagiarism or reduplicative language depending on who you ask). Or maybe you remember the "research" for the most dominant reading programs being debunked and exposed as a, essentially, cult of personality that left kids unable to read but the cultists rich. Iow, a fair amount of Modern Science is post-factual, and oriented towards publication and money. The field doesn't seem to matter. There are many reasons why "Science advances one gravestone at a time"...
  - scarmig 3y ago
    Exactly. Where are the replications? Has the culture of research in general (not just in psychology) become so perverse that researchers have no incentive to conduct real research? Unfortunately, I don't see gravestones as offering a good basis for rejuvenation. It's about the systemic incentives, not individuals so ossified in their thinking that they suppress alternative approaches and theories.
- epgui 3y ago
  My complaint to this sort of complaint is it presumes that scientists are unaware of a problem that so many people seem to be aware of. There’s no reason to not consider psychology/sociology/etc real sciences without air quotes.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    My comment doesn't say that psychological sciences are less real sciences than the real sciences. It's wishing we also had studies to see if even studies in the real sciences are replicable (and, when they aren't, do they self correct?)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- derbOac 3y ago
  The replication crisis has been identified in numerous fields in numerous ways. Pharm industry budgets for it, for example. The specific phenomenon described in this paper has been documented in other fields in other ways as well: retracted papers, for instance, tend to continue to be cited.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SJMG 3y ago
tl;dr: no, it's not.

7 points by EndXA 3y ago

My main complaint about this: anyone paying attention knows that psychological "sciences" are deeply troubled fields at best. What I want to see is something like this study performed against what we think of as real sciences. Is the replication crisis universal, or is it localized?

readthenotes1 3y ago
The article within mentions, among other fields, non replicability in cancer research. I recall reading a few years ago about the inability to replicate computer science papers. You have probably heard about the Harvard professor who specializes in dishonesty being caught out for fabricating results (not the one caught out for plagiarism or reduplicative language depending on who you ask). Or maybe you remember the "research" for the most dominant reading programs being debunked and exposed as a, essentially, cult of personality that left kids unable to read but the cultists rich. Iow, a fair amount of Modern Science is post-factual, and oriented towards publication and money. The field doesn't seem to matter. There are many reasons why "Science advances one gravestone at a time"...
- scarmig 3y ago
  Exactly. Where are the replications? Has the culture of research in general (not just in psychology) become so perverse that researchers have no incentive to conduct real research? Unfortunately, I don't see gravestones as offering a good basis for rejuvenation. It's about the systemic incentives, not individuals so ossified in their thinking that they suppress alternative approaches and theories.
epgui 3y ago
My complaint to this sort of complaint is it presumes that scientists are unaware of a problem that so many people seem to be aware of. There’s no reason to not consider psychology/sociology/etc real sciences without air quotes.
- scarmig 3y ago
  My comment doesn't say that psychological sciences are less real sciences than the real sciences. It's wishing we also had studies to see if even studies in the real sciences are replicable (and, when they aren't, do they self correct?)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
derbOac 3y ago
The replication crisis has been identified in numerous fields in numerous ways. Pharm industry budgets for it, for example. The specific phenomenon described in this paper has been documented in other fields in other ways as well: retracted papers, for instance, tend to continue to be cited.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SJMG 3y ago

tl;dr: no, it's not.