4 ms·

Isn't the elephant in the room the social sciences though? Like a vast quantity of their research output is badly designed studies that don't replicate, and se

Isn't the elephant in the room the social sciences though? Like a vast quantity of their research output is badly designed studies that don't replicate, and serve only to launder the authors ideology through a veneer of science. It honestly think that certain social sciences might have negative RoI, e.g., the famous one about Alpha Wolves (wolves don't form Alpha beta Beta hierarchies in the wild, they actually have family unit packs).

SamoyedFurFluff 2y ago
I don’t think this is limited to social sciences (wasn’t the wolf thing a biology one? When was biology a social science). I can argue for example plenty of physics theories are negative ROI and much of physics can’t even be tested much less replicated.
hellotheretoday 2y ago
Are you saying this based on actual evidence or based on supposition and anecdote? The oft repeated claim is the replication crisis as you mention but this isn’t limited to social science nor is social science the worst offender. Replication rates for psychology have ranged between 36 [1] and 62% [2] in a few metas I just pulled up A notable paper in biology is the Amgen paper that shows an 11% replication rate for landmark cancer research[3]. There’s a paper from Bayer that shows only about 25% of published preclinical trials could be validated [4] Similarly in economics there have been papers finding replication rates of 54% [5] So maybe the issue is not a wildlife ecology study from the 40s that was definitively debunked by a biology study in the 90s. Maybe it’s p-hacking, journals that focus entirely on publishing novel research over replication (and grant funders that act similarly), refusals to share data and methodological details/process transparency, etc that apply to all fields. [1] DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z [3]10.1136/bmj.e2555 [4]10.1038/nrd3439-c1 [5]10.1038/s41562-024-02062-9
watwut 2y ago
Alpha thing is not a social science e thing. That is online right wing thing. Those are the ones who love to talk about alphas.
melagonster 2y ago
This specific scientist spent all his life telling people he found his last research got the wrong result. but people like "alpha theory", so nobody notice it.
rightbyte 2y ago
> (wolves don't form Alpha beta Beta hierarchies in the wild, they actually have family unit packs) I've seen the term alpha wolf so many times that I justed assumed it was a thing. It is quite emberrassing reading up on it.

SamoyedFurFluff 2y ago

I don’t think this is limited to social sciences (wasn’t the wolf thing a biology one? When was biology a social science). I can argue for example plenty of physics theories are negative ROI and much of physics can’t even be tested much less replicated.

hellotheretoday 2y ago

Are you saying this based on actual evidence or based on supposition and anecdote? The oft repeated claim is the replication crisis as you mention but this isn’t limited to social science nor is social science the worst offender. Replication rates for psychology have ranged between 36 [1] and 62% [2] in a few metas I just pulled up A notable paper in biology is the Amgen paper that shows an 11% replication rate for landmark cancer research[3]. There’s a paper from Bayer that shows only about 25% of published preclinical trials could be validated [4] Similarly in economics there have been papers finding replication rates of 54% [5] So maybe the issue is not a wildlife ecology study from the 40s that was definitively debunked by a biology study in the 90s. Maybe it’s p-hacking, journals that focus entirely on publishing novel research over replication (and grant funders that act similarly), refusals to share data and methodological details/process transparency, etc that apply to all fields. [1] DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z [3]10.1136/bmj.e2555 [4]10.1038/nrd3439-c1 [5]10.1038/s41562-024-02062-9

watwut 2y ago

Alpha thing is not a social science e thing. That is online right wing thing. Those are the ones who love to talk about alphas.

melagonster 2y ago

This specific scientist spent all his life telling people he found his last research got the wrong result. but people like "alpha theory", so nobody notice it.

rightbyte 2y ago

> (wolves don't form Alpha beta Beta hierarchies in the wild, they actually have family unit packs) I've seen the term alpha wolf so many times that I justed assumed it was a thing. It is quite emberrassing reading up on it.