4 ms·

I can see that - replication being the backbone of science. However, there are areas of inquiry that most would consider science that also suffer from similar

I can see that - replication being the backbone of science. However, there are areas of inquiry that most would consider science that also suffer from similar failure rates of replication - for example, biomedical research[1]. Would you consider the people working in, say, oncology research[2], not doing science because there are issues replicating their work? (This is not a gotcha - just trying to understand your thought process and boundaries because perhaps you've seen things I haven't or understand things that I don't) [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1 [2] - https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a

karaterobot 2y ago
(I'm not the person you're responding to, just an internet butthead) Agreed that there is a broader replication crisis across many fields, so using replication as a necessary condition for being scientific has troubling existential ramifications even for disciplines most people would consider hard science. There's the hard definition of science as being anything that rigorously applies the scientific method, and the one that includes the scientific method plus other behaviors, like professional standards and ethics. But even that is problematic in a lot of fields these days. Generally, I don't think of social science as being science in the same way as, for example, physics, because it's often trying to answer questions that I don't believe can be reduced to a predictive theory. Anything involving declarations about how people behave—especially individuals, but even in aggregate—doesn't feel like a productive use of science. That's one thing, and not by itself a problem, because hey, you never know, maybe someday they'll crack the problem. But the fact that social science often dresses itself in the costume of science in order to project authority is the real reason that I, personally, tend rush to point out that it's not 'real' science. Having said that, would you believe I have a postgraduate degree in a social science discipline? It's true! Maybe that's why I can't stand it putting on airs.
rebolek 2y ago
Ideological vomits aren't results of thought process.

karaterobot 2y ago

(I'm not the person you're responding to, just an internet butthead) Agreed that there is a broader replication crisis across many fields, so using replication as a necessary condition for being scientific has troubling existential ramifications even for disciplines most people would consider hard science. There's the hard definition of science as being anything that rigorously applies the scientific method, and the one that includes the scientific method plus other behaviors, like professional standards and ethics. But even that is problematic in a lot of fields these days. Generally, I don't think of social science as being science in the same way as, for example, physics, because it's often trying to answer questions that I don't believe can be reduced to a predictive theory. Anything involving declarations about how people behave—especially individuals, but even in aggregate—doesn't feel like a productive use of science. That's one thing, and not by itself a problem, because hey, you never know, maybe someday they'll crack the problem. But the fact that social science often dresses itself in the costume of science in order to project authority is the real reason that I, personally, tend rush to point out that it's not 'real' science. Having said that, would you believe I have a postgraduate degree in a social science discipline? It's true! Maybe that's why I can't stand it putting on airs.

rebolek 2y ago

Ideological vomits aren't results of thought process.