3 ms·

Why fewer women go into science and engineering

6 points by asimjalis 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
I hope no one is deluded into thinking that, because there is a journal called "Psychological Science", that therefore psychology is a science. It isn't. If all science required was a word, then Christian Science would be a science also. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-point.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/final-repo... Quote: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true."
- asimjalis 14y ago
  Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field? Your point is certainly valid, but just because there are some poorly reasoned papers in psychology it does not follow that all psychological research is quackery.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > ... just because there are some poorly reasoned papers in psychology it does not follow that all psychological research is quackery. Your words, not mine. Psychologists aren't quacks, they're perfectly respectable pseudoscientists, and there is plenty of research in the field, some of it first-rate. But no amount of research can turn a field into a science unless the research leads to the establishment of theoretical principles. This is something psychologists famously avoid. Once psychologists start shaping and testing theories, and agreeing on basic principles, it is then that they will have crossed the threshold of science. Once they move beyond description to explanation, then they will have crossed the threshold of science. Once psychologists rely on scientific evidence instead of votes ... All the conditions that were added to, and removed from, the new DSM-V, were decided -- not by evidence -- but by a majority vote. Scientists let evidence rule. Psychologists let committees rule. Imagine if real scientists behaved like psychologists: "Is there life on Mars? Rockets are expensive -- let's vote!" > Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field? I didn't tar the entire field. The Stapel Affair investigators tarred the entire field. I merely quoted their reluctant conclusion. More on this topic: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science

6 points by asimjalis 14y ago

I hope no one is deluded into thinking that, because there is a journal called "Psychological Science", that therefore psychology is a science. It isn't. If all science required was a word, then Christian Science would be a science also. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-point.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/final-repo... Quote: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true."

asimjalis 14y ago
Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field? Your point is certainly valid, but just because there are some poorly reasoned papers in psychology it does not follow that all psychological research is quackery.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > ... just because there are some poorly reasoned papers in psychology it does not follow that all psychological research is quackery. Your words, not mine. Psychologists aren't quacks, they're perfectly respectable pseudoscientists, and there is plenty of research in the field, some of it first-rate. But no amount of research can turn a field into a science unless the research leads to the establishment of theoretical principles. This is something psychologists famously avoid. Once psychologists start shaping and testing theories, and agreeing on basic principles, it is then that they will have crossed the threshold of science. Once they move beyond description to explanation, then they will have crossed the threshold of science. Once psychologists rely on scientific evidence instead of votes ... All the conditions that were added to, and removed from, the new DSM-V, were decided -- not by evidence -- but by a majority vote. Scientists let evidence rule. Psychologists let committees rule. Imagine if real scientists behaved like psychologists: "Is there life on Mars? Rockets are expensive -- let's vote!" > Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field? I didn't tar the entire field. The Stapel Affair investigators tarred the entire field. I merely quoted their reluctant conclusion. More on this topic: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science