3 ms·

> Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Actually, two labs reported achievi

> Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. See http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html for a comprehensive, well-written examination of this. The Bayesian approach to assessing the validity of scientific claims, which is quite popular these days, implies that every scientific study has some meaning before replication. However, it requires reasonable priors. Most people who are not in the field won't have reasonable priors, and most people who aren't scientists won't be used to thinking this way at all. In this case, my prior for this study being true is probably higher than yours because I remember its predecessor (which you can read too at http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/psfSpring2013/DeWall.pdf http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/psfSpring2...). It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it :).

lutusp 13y ago
> Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. Yes, but they were all false and later proven false. A replication doesn't mean two or more labs making the same mistakes. There's a bit more to it than that. > Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it ... I have. Science requires testable, falsifiable theories. Psychology doesn't have any of those. This is not remotely controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation." > It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. The measurements were apparently neuroscience, but the claims that followed certainly weren't. It's not uncommon to see an apparently scientific measurement, followed by conjectures that aren't in any way supported by the measurements. Science proceeds by theories either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. Psychology proceeds by votes.
- simonster 13y ago
  > > Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. > Yes, but they were all false and later proven false. A replication doesn't mean two or more labs making the same mistakes. There's a bit more to it than that. The article I linked to (which was written by David Goodstein, a professor of physics at Caltech and definitely not a crackpot) discusses the situation surrounding cold fusion in a great amount of detail, and illuminates the difference between proof and scientific consensus. If you believe the account, no one ever proved that the experimenters were not observing what they claimed to observe. Instead, the main problem was that the effects were not consistent, that they seemed to good to be true, and that there was no physical explanation at the time they were "discovered." > > Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it ... > I have. Science requires testable, falsifiable theories. Psychology doesn't have any of those. This is not remotely controversial. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability > Quote: "Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation." The statement you cite is preceded by the phrase "In falsificationism..." As the article notes further down, "Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science." As for psychology not having testable, falsifiable theories, that's probably true for some definitions of "psychology," but it's a huge discipline, and there are some rigorous psychophysics papers out there that test real hypotheses. (I'm a neuroscientist, not a psychologist, but I'd be happy to send you some of my favorites.) > The measurements were apparently neuroscience, but the claims that followed certainly weren't. It's not uncommon to see an apparently scientific measurement, followed by conjectures that aren't in any way supported by the measurements. I agree to this to a limited extent. The claim that everyone cares about is that Tylenol has a psychoactive effect, and showing that brain activity changes when Tylenol is administered definitely supports that claim. Trying to draw connections between brain activity and pain is much harder. > Science proceeds by theories either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. Psychology proceeds by votes. Both hard sciences and psychology proceed by votes. This is demonstrated by the cold fusion article, and it's also one of the main theses of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Why do you hate psychology so much?

lutusp 13y ago

> Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. Yes, but they were all false and later proven false. A replication doesn't mean two or more labs making the same mistakes. There's a bit more to it than that. > Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it ... I have. Science requires testable, falsifiable theories. Psychology doesn't have any of those. This is not remotely controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation." > It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. The measurements were apparently neuroscience, but the claims that followed certainly weren't. It's not uncommon to see an apparently scientific measurement, followed by conjectures that aren't in any way supported by the measurements. Science proceeds by theories either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. Psychology proceeds by votes.

simonster 13y ago
> > Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. > Yes, but they were all false and later proven false. A replication doesn't mean two or more labs making the same mistakes. There's a bit more to it than that. The article I linked to (which was written by David Goodstein, a professor of physics at Caltech and definitely not a crackpot) discusses the situation surrounding cold fusion in a great amount of detail, and illuminates the difference between proof and scientific consensus. If you believe the account, no one ever proved that the experimenters were not observing what they claimed to observe. Instead, the main problem was that the effects were not consistent, that they seemed to good to be true, and that there was no physical explanation at the time they were "discovered." > > Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it ... > I have. Science requires testable, falsifiable theories. Psychology doesn't have any of those. This is not remotely controversial. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability > Quote: "Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation." The statement you cite is preceded by the phrase "In falsificationism..." As the article notes further down, "Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science." As for psychology not having testable, falsifiable theories, that's probably true for some definitions of "psychology," but it's a huge discipline, and there are some rigorous psychophysics papers out there that test real hypotheses. (I'm a neuroscientist, not a psychologist, but I'd be happy to send you some of my favorites.) > The measurements were apparently neuroscience, but the claims that followed certainly weren't. It's not uncommon to see an apparently scientific measurement, followed by conjectures that aren't in any way supported by the measurements. I agree to this to a limited extent. The claim that everyone cares about is that Tylenol has a psychoactive effect, and showing that brain activity changes when Tylenol is administered definitely supports that claim. Trying to draw connections between brain activity and pain is much harder. > Science proceeds by theories either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. Psychology proceeds by votes. Both hard sciences and psychology proceed by votes. This is demonstrated by the cold fusion article, and it's also one of the main theses of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Why do you hate psychology so much?