6 ms·

> What makes you say that this kind of study can never ascend to the level of science? Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence canno

by lutusp 13y ago

> What makes you say that this kind of study can never ascend to the level of science? Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. The only way to get around these obstacles would be to feed one group of people doses of lead and compare them to another in a controlled setting, or isolate two groups of people, give one group the right to birth control and abortions, deny the other group those rights, and keep them from finding out about each other. Things that cannot be done for ethical reasons, and things that prevent social psychology from rising to the level of science. This is why social psychology cannot be a science, and it explains why the field has the terrible reputation it has and deserves. Link: http://chronicle.com/article/As-Dutch-Research-Scandal/129746/ http://chronicle.com/article/As-Dutch-Research-Scandal/12974... Quote: "Even before the Stapel case broke, a flurry of articles had begun appearing this fall that pointed to supposed systemic flaws in the way psychologists handle data. But one methodological expert, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, of the University of Amsterdam, added a sociological twist to the statistical debate: Psychology, he argued in a recent blog post and an interview, has become addicted to surprising, counterintuitive findings that catch the news media's eye, and that trend is warping the field." > Anyhow, I strongly disagree that you can say that this isn't science. Yes, I understand, but you haven't the slightest idea what makes science science. If you did, you would recognize this sort of article for what it is. Social psychology deserves its reputation, science operates at a higher level, this is Science 101, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Not a clue. There is a one-word summary of what science requires, that word is known to every qualified scientist, and you do not know what it is. How do I know this? You defended social psychology for over four hundred words without even mentioning it.

DanBC 13y ago
I welcome your strong defence of best quality science. The general public needs to know how the stronger sciences differ from the softer sciences. However, this post is needlessly rude.
czr80 13y ago
You could I guess define Science as only applying to areas where you can do controlled experiments - but you would thereby eliminate all observational sciences - evolutionary biology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. I suspect most people would find that a somewhat extreme position. Also, fraud is an issue in all fields of Science, so that seems somewhat an unfair issue to introduce.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > but you would thereby eliminate all observational sciences - evolutionary biology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. No. Not if an observation leads to a testable, falsifiable theory, if that theory makes new predictions, if the predictions are verified, and if the theory in all its manifestations remains potentially falsifiable by new evidence. Like quantum theory, the best scientific theory we have, a theory that makes many other fields look like stamp collecting, and a theory that relies on observations of real-world phenomena. As to cosmology, there are a number of cosmological theories based on observation that have led to testable theories, and those theories have survived reality-testing and have made predictions that are later verified in observations, like the recent observations of the CMB that support inflationary theory and led to some recent Nobel Prizes. > I suspect most people would find that a somewhat extreme position. Science is not a popularity contest, and it is not politics. > Also, fraud is an issue in all fields of Science, so that seems somewhat an unfair issue to introduce. Many people don't understand that some pseudoscientific fields are all fraud, in which case arguing that all fields have some fraud misses the point.
  - easyfrag 13y ago
    Well in the case of lead wouldn't the prediction be: a jurisdiction that removes lead from its petroleum products will experience a significant decrease in crime rates about 20 years later?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      Not without a testable, falsifiable explanation. Observations (i.e. descriptions) can't be falsified, that's reserved for explanations. If I say, "the night sky is filled with little points of light", that's hardly falsifiable. But if I say, "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, but at greater distances", that claim is open to meaningful test and possible falsification. Here's why a testable, falsifiable theory is required for science. Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining, falsifiable theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just as the linked article describes the correlation between lead in gasoline and the crime rate. Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that social psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?
sergiosgc 13y ago
> Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. The world is noisy, measures are inaccurate, life is not perfect, but we learn to deal with it. Not all science can be math theory. When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. Feel free to change the topic. Science is very clearly defined, and an absence of falsifiability is fatal. Either: 1. A theory can potentially be falsified by new evidence, or 2. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience." Which part of the above didn't you understand? > When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection. As I said, feel free to change the subject.
  - aninhumer 13y ago
    What makes you say the results of these studies are unfalsifiable?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      Try to imagine how you would prove false the claim, in a social setting, with multiple factors at work, and no meaningful controls. If I shake a dried gourd over a cold sufferer and he gets better, I can claim to have been the cause of the recovery. And guess what? No one can prove that claim false. The fact the colds are really caused by germs is true and interesting, but it doesn't falsify my claim to have been the cause of the recovery. That's why scientific claims requires a basis for falsification. And this is more than a philosophical position, it's written into the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas Quote: "The judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being: * It is guided by natural law; * It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; * It is testable against the empirical world; * Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and * It is falsifiable."
lambda 13y ago
The only way to get around these obstacles would be to feed one group of people doses of lead and compare them to another in a controlled setting, or isolate two groups of people, give one group the right to birth control and abortions, deny the other group those rights, and keep them from finding out about each other. Things that cannot be done for ethical reasons, and things that prevent social psychology from rising to the level of science. And yet in another comment, you say that cosmology, which has the same problem with not being able to vary the inputs and observe the effects on the outputs, is a real science. Why? Because it offers falsifiable hypotheses; you can make a prediction based on certain data, then test that prediction against other data. The exact same is true of this topic. As I pointed out in my comment above, in portions that you conveniently ignored, there are strong predictions that this research makes, which can be tested. The original paper on this topic was written in 1999, and there is already 15 years worth of additional data since then; the next 10 to 15 years will provide even more data, which could falsify or could be consistent with this hypothesis. This is why social psychology cannot be a science, and it explains why the field has the terrible reputation it has and deserves. I don't know why you bring up social psychology, as this study is not social psychology. It's more environmental sociology. Social psychology is the study of how people's behavior is related to their beliefs and attitudes about other people. This study is about how chronic, population wide lead poisoning relates to criminal behavior. And while I share your skepticism about social psychology, the mere presence of corrupting influences such as the ones you mention, the desire for snappy, headline-ready results, does not mean that an entire field is devoid of value or not science. There are other fields, such as pharmacology, which likewise have troubling corrupting influences, and yet can also be real science that produce real value. Anyhow, we've diverged pretty far from the original topic, as the original topic is not even within the field of social psychology. you haven't the slightest idea what makes science science. you have no idea what you're talking about. Not a clue you do not know what it is. How do I know this? You defended social psychology for over four hundred words without even mentioning it. Please refrain from the ad-hominem attacks. They bring the level of the discussion down considerably. I do not mention social psychology because this research is not social psychology. This research is founded on well known, rigorous research on the effects of lead poisoning.[1] This is not some surprising, out-of-left-field result which came out of the blue from some small study on a handful of college undergrads, which is the problem with many psychological and social psychology findings; this is based on building on many years of research and meta-analysis of epidemiological research. The original paper on this topic[2] was written in 1999, follow up papers from other authors have been published in 2007[3]. There have been further studies confirming this effect; this 2008 paper in PLOS Medicine[4] measured prenatal blood lead levels in pregnant mothers, childhood lead levels, and later correlated that with arrest rates. They too found a strong correlation. Other studies on the same cohort have shown a strong correlation between blood lead levels and reduced brain mass[5]. Here's a paper that compares several of the hypotheses that you have brought up[6]. Now, I take this paper with a large grain of salt, because it clearly comes from a biased source, the Heartland Institute, which is clearly biased towards libertarian findings; and the point of the paper is to argue against drug prohibition, or excessive enforcement of it (I am sympathetic to that viewpoint, but view their research on the topic with a heavy dose of skepticism). However, they compared several of the proposed determinants of violent crime rates, such as incarceration rates, access to legal abortion, environmental lead, and so on, and the only one of them (outside of the one that they're obviously promoting, drug prohibition) which held up with a consistent correlation was environmental lead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning [2]: http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Nevin_2000_Env_Res_Author_Manuscript.pdf http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Nevin_2000_Env_Res_Author_M... [3]: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf?new_window=1 [4]: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050101 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... [5]: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050112 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... [6]: http://news.heartland.org/sites/default/files/c11845.pdf http://news.heartland.org/sites/default/files/c11845.pdf
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. The only way to get around these obstacles would be to feed one group of people doses of lead and compare them to another in a controlled setting, or isolate two groups of people, give one group the right to birth control and abortions, deny the other group those rights, and keep them from finding out about each other. Uh, no, statistical controls are a real tool of real science. While laboratory conditions are in some ways (ethics aside) ideal, they aren't a prerequisite for real science.

by lutusp 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

I welcome your strong defence of best quality science. The general public needs to know how the stronger sciences differ from the softer sciences. However, this post is needlessly rude.

czr80 13y ago

You could I guess define Science as only applying to areas where you can do controlled experiments - but you would thereby eliminate all observational sciences - evolutionary biology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. I suspect most people would find that a somewhat extreme position. Also, fraud is an issue in all fields of Science, so that seems somewhat an unfair issue to introduce.

lutusp 13y ago
> but you would thereby eliminate all observational sciences - evolutionary biology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. No. Not if an observation leads to a testable, falsifiable theory, if that theory makes new predictions, if the predictions are verified, and if the theory in all its manifestations remains potentially falsifiable by new evidence. Like quantum theory, the best scientific theory we have, a theory that makes many other fields look like stamp collecting, and a theory that relies on observations of real-world phenomena. As to cosmology, there are a number of cosmological theories based on observation that have led to testable theories, and those theories have survived reality-testing and have made predictions that are later verified in observations, like the recent observations of the CMB that support inflationary theory and led to some recent Nobel Prizes. > I suspect most people would find that a somewhat extreme position. Science is not a popularity contest, and it is not politics. > Also, fraud is an issue in all fields of Science, so that seems somewhat an unfair issue to introduce. Many people don't understand that some pseudoscientific fields are all fraud, in which case arguing that all fields have some fraud misses the point.
- easyfrag 13y ago
  Well in the case of lead wouldn't the prediction be: a jurisdiction that removes lead from its petroleum products will experience a significant decrease in crime rates about 20 years later?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Not without a testable, falsifiable explanation. Observations (i.e. descriptions) can't be falsified, that's reserved for explanations. If I say, "the night sky is filled with little points of light", that's hardly falsifiable. But if I say, "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, but at greater distances", that claim is open to meaningful test and possible falsification. Here's why a testable, falsifiable theory is required for science. Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining, falsifiable theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just as the linked article describes the correlation between lead in gasoline and the crime rate. Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that social psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?

sergiosgc 13y ago

> Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. The world is noisy, measures are inaccurate, life is not perfect, but we learn to deal with it. Not all science can be math theory. When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection.

lutusp 13y ago
> If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. Feel free to change the topic. Science is very clearly defined, and an absence of falsifiability is fatal. Either: 1. A theory can potentially be falsified by new evidence, or 2. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience." Which part of the above didn't you understand? > When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection. As I said, feel free to change the subject.
- aninhumer 13y ago
  What makes you say the results of these studies are unfalsifiable?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Try to imagine how you would prove false the claim, in a social setting, with multiple factors at work, and no meaningful controls. If I shake a dried gourd over a cold sufferer and he gets better, I can claim to have been the cause of the recovery. And guess what? No one can prove that claim false. The fact the colds are really caused by germs is true and interesting, but it doesn't falsify my claim to have been the cause of the recovery. That's why scientific claims requires a basis for falsification. And this is more than a philosophical position, it's written into the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas Quote: "The judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being: * It is guided by natural law; * It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; * It is testable against the empirical world; * Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and * It is falsifiable."

lambda 13y ago

The only way to get around these obstacles would be to feed one group of people doses of lead and compare them to another in a controlled setting, or isolate two groups of people, give one group the right to birth control and abortions, deny the other group those rights, and keep them from finding out about each other. Things that cannot be done for ethical reasons, and things that prevent social psychology from rising to the level of science. And yet in another comment, you say that cosmology, which has the same problem with not being able to vary the inputs and observe the effects on the outputs, is a real science. Why? Because it offers falsifiable hypotheses; you can make a prediction based on certain data, then test that prediction against other data. The exact same is true of this topic. As I pointed out in my comment above, in portions that you conveniently ignored, there are strong predictions that this research makes, which can be tested. The original paper on this topic was written in 1999, and there is already 15 years worth of additional data since then; the next 10 to 15 years will provide even more data, which could falsify or could be consistent with this hypothesis. This is why social psychology cannot be a science, and it explains why the field has the terrible reputation it has and deserves. I don't know why you bring up social psychology, as this study is not social psychology. It's more environmental sociology. Social psychology is the study of how people's behavior is related to their beliefs and attitudes about other people. This study is about how chronic, population wide lead poisoning relates to criminal behavior. And while I share your skepticism about social psychology, the mere presence of corrupting influences such as the ones you mention, the desire for snappy, headline-ready results, does not mean that an entire field is devoid of value or not science. There are other fields, such as pharmacology, which likewise have troubling corrupting influences, and yet can also be real science that produce real value. Anyhow, we've diverged pretty far from the original topic, as the original topic is not even within the field of social psychology. you haven't the slightest idea what makes science science. you have no idea what you're talking about. Not a clue you do not know what it is. How do I know this? You defended social psychology for over four hundred words without even mentioning it. Please refrain from the ad-hominem attacks. They bring the level of the discussion down considerably. I do not mention social psychology because this research is not social psychology. This research is founded on well known, rigorous research on the effects of lead poisoning.[1] This is not some surprising, out-of-left-field result which came out of the blue from some small study on a handful of college undergrads, which is the problem with many psychological and social psychology findings; this is based on building on many years of research and meta-analysis of epidemiological research. The original paper on this topic[2] was written in 1999, follow up papers from other authors have been published in 2007[3]. There have been further studies confirming this effect; this 2008 paper in PLOS Medicine[4] measured prenatal blood lead levels in pregnant mothers, childhood lead levels, and later correlated that with arrest rates. They too found a strong correlation. Other studies on the same cohort have shown a strong correlation between blood lead levels and reduced brain mass[5]. Here's a paper that compares several of the hypotheses that you have brought up[6]. Now, I take this paper with a large grain of salt, because it clearly comes from a biased source, the Heartland Institute, which is clearly biased towards libertarian findings; and the point of the paper is to argue against drug prohibition, or excessive enforcement of it (I am sympathetic to that viewpoint, but view their research on the topic with a heavy dose of skepticism). However, they compared several of the proposed determinants of violent crime rates, such as incarceration rates, access to legal abortion, environmental lead, and so on, and the only one of them (outside of the one that they're obviously promoting, drug prohibition) which held up with a consistent correlation was environmental lead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning [2]: http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Nevin_2000_Env_Res_Author_Manuscript.pdf http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Nevin_2000_Env_Res_Author_M... [3]: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf?new_window=1 [4]: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050101 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... [5]: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050112 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... [6]: http://news.heartland.org/sites/default/files/c11845.pdf http://news.heartland.org/sites/default/files/c11845.pdf

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. The only way to get around these obstacles would be to feed one group of people doses of lead and compare them to another in a controlled setting, or isolate two groups of people, give one group the right to birth control and abortions, deny the other group those rights, and keep them from finding out about each other. Uh, no, statistical controls are a real tool of real science. While laboratory conditions are in some ways (ethics aside) ideal, they aren't a prerequisite for real science.