4 ms·

1. It has lots of meaning before replication, which is why people tend to replicate things --- they were inspired. 2. Apparently the first study isn't science.

1. It has lots of meaning before replication, which is why people tend to replicate things --- they were inspired. 2. Apparently the first study isn't science. I didn't realize that science was a catch-22 situation. 3. This is so absurd that I feel like I'm being trolled. They have a testable hypothesis: that acetaminophen/paracetamol has a side effect of X. 4. See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

lutusp 13y ago
> 1. It has lots of meaning before replication ... Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Of course, you may be speaking of the prevailing standards in psychology, in which case you're right -- but then psychology isn't a science. > 2. Apparently the first study isn't science. That's correct -- it isn't. > I didn't realize that science was a catch-22 situation. Only if you can't replicate any studies. That's psychology's problem, but not science's problem. In science, studies are replicated regularly, and no one takes a study seriously if it hasn't been replicated, especially where human health is concerned. > They have a testable hypothesis: that acetaminophen/paracetamol has a side effect of X. That is not an explanation, it's a description. Science requires testable explanations. The paper doesn't presume to explain its results. If I say "the night sky is full of little points of light", that's certainly testable -- someone else can go outside the tent and confirm it, but it's just a description -- not a basis for science, which requires that someone have the nerve to suggest an explanation for what has been described. But if I say "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, at greater distances", I have offered a testable, falsifiable explanation. That's science. If someone correlated a specific biochemical action in individual neurons with later very specific behavior, that might count as science, but that would be neuroscience, not psychology. Psychology doesn't try to analytically connect specific physical causes to effects -- it's satisfied to describe outcomes without pretending to know why they are so. > See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ The fallacy is yours, not mine. You appear to think one study making ten claims constitutes science. In fact, science is ten studies making one claim.
- redcircle 13y ago
  Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition, you can hopefully understand that they will be insulted to have what they think is science to be called not science. Whether you meant it or not, it appears as an attempt to elevate yourself (the person passing judgement, by calling it not science) over the study authors. Thus it comes across as contemptuous, and so one starts wondering: why is this person trying to belittle the study? Is there a hidden agenda? Is this person trying to make it look like the scientists performing the study aren't scientists, so that everyone dismisses the results? These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental. > In fact, science is ten studies making one claim. If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? I've never heard it before, and it contradicts everything that I've encountered to date.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    From previous experience discussing on HN, I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate. And your evidence is that we're having this debate?
  - freshhawk 13y ago
    A "source for this definition"? It follows logically from the fact that science is about replication and specificity. You're asking for an authority to tell you something when it would have made more sense to ask "why do you say that" or "why would that be true". And I do know people who would use this definition: every single person I know who is a scientist. I think it's a rather pithy distillation of the process of gaining scientific consensus. The source would be: "learn what the process of science is about, how it works and about the philosophy of science and this quote becomes a rather obvious truism" A single study is to science what a single TDD test case is to software engineering. Despite what crappy news outlets tell you. All that said, lutusp is being pretty negative about this study for no obvious reason. Someone needs to do the exploratory work at the beginning and this is interesting work, whether you call it science or the start of science. The rest seems like complaining about the press being the press.

lutusp 13y ago

> 1. It has lots of meaning before replication ... Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Of course, you may be speaking of the prevailing standards in psychology, in which case you're right -- but then psychology isn't a science. > 2. Apparently the first study isn't science. That's correct -- it isn't. > I didn't realize that science was a catch-22 situation. Only if you can't replicate any studies. That's psychology's problem, but not science's problem. In science, studies are replicated regularly, and no one takes a study seriously if it hasn't been replicated, especially where human health is concerned. > They have a testable hypothesis: that acetaminophen/paracetamol has a side effect of X. That is not an explanation, it's a description. Science requires testable explanations. The paper doesn't presume to explain its results. If I say "the night sky is full of little points of light", that's certainly testable -- someone else can go outside the tent and confirm it, but it's just a description -- not a basis for science, which requires that someone have the nerve to suggest an explanation for what has been described. But if I say "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, at greater distances", I have offered a testable, falsifiable explanation. That's science. If someone correlated a specific biochemical action in individual neurons with later very specific behavior, that might count as science, but that would be neuroscience, not psychology. Psychology doesn't try to analytically connect specific physical causes to effects -- it's satisfied to describe outcomes without pretending to know why they are so. > See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ The fallacy is yours, not mine. You appear to think one study making ten claims constitutes science. In fact, science is ten studies making one claim.

redcircle 13y ago
Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition, you can hopefully understand that they will be insulted to have what they think is science to be called not science. Whether you meant it or not, it appears as an attempt to elevate yourself (the person passing judgement, by calling it not science) over the study authors. Thus it comes across as contemptuous, and so one starts wondering: why is this person trying to belittle the study? Is there a hidden agenda? Is this person trying to make it look like the scientists performing the study aren't scientists, so that everyone dismisses the results? These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental. > In fact, science is ten studies making one claim. If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? I've never heard it before, and it contradicts everything that I've encountered to date.
- _delirium 13y ago
  From previous experience discussing on HN, I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate. And your evidence is that we're having this debate?
- freshhawk 13y ago
  A "source for this definition"? It follows logically from the fact that science is about replication and specificity. You're asking for an authority to tell you something when it would have made more sense to ask "why do you say that" or "why would that be true". And I do know people who would use this definition: every single person I know who is a scientist. I think it's a rather pithy distillation of the process of gaining scientific consensus. The source would be: "learn what the process of science is about, how it works and about the philosophy of science and this quote becomes a rather obvious truism" A single study is to science what a single TDD test case is to software engineering. Despite what crappy news outlets tell you. All that said, lutusp is being pretty negative about this study for no obvious reason. Someone needs to do the exploratory work at the beginning and this is interesting work, whether you call it science or the start of science. The rest seems like complaining about the press being the press.