5 ms·

A quote: "Diederik Stapel, the infamous "lying Dutchman" who in 2011 admitted to inventing the data in dozens of psychology research papers, unwittingly signall

by lutusp 12y ago

A quote: "Diederik Stapel, the infamous "lying Dutchman" who in 2011 admitted to inventing the data in dozens of psychology research papers, unwittingly signalled his deceit through the language he used. As well as inflating the certainty surrounding his results, Stapel included more science-related terms to describe his methods when writing up his fraudulent "findings" than when describing genuine results. "Researchers who have analysed Stapel's papers say they can separate his genuine research from the fictional with about 70 per cent accuracy. Now they are studying a larger sample of papers from many different scientific fraudsters, to see if the detection method works more generally." Just think -- if psychology were a science, researchers could use scientific tools to detect fraud -- tests that were not conducted, lab measurements that were fudged, images manipulated to create a false impression, as happens in real scientific fields. In extreme cases, we could detect fraud by simply repeating the experiments, using the clear protocols published along with the results. But in psychology, investigators are completely dependent on what people say, not what they do. If Stapel were in a real scientific field, he would never have gotten away with his many verbal frauds, and fraud detection would be child's play. Another quote: "Stapel, who worked at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, used more "amplifiers" – words like "profoundly" and "extreme" – in his fraudulent papers, and fewer "diminishers" – like "merely" and "somewhat"." Imagine a real scientist trying to defraud his university and granting agencies by using words like "profoundly" and "extreme" about his lab results. But in science, such descriptions would make no difference -- the lab results, the evidence, would decide the issue. It's important to understand that in psychology, because of its status as a pseudoscience, how you describe your work is more important than the outcome of experiments, and one can cheat with words. In a real science, Diederik Stapel would have been exposed within days of entering a laboratory.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- lutusp 12y ago
  > You ignore the use of the detection method in other areas - areas that you would call science. The linked article suggests that psychologists may try to produce results by analyzing how actual scientists talk about their science, blithely ignoring the fact that examining the science itself would be more effective. Also, an advocate of what you suggest would be hard-pressed to produce tangible evidence for results in mainstream science, because there aren't any. Frauds in real scientific fields are exposed, not by comparing their words to their work, but by comparing the evidence to reality. > Do you realise just how kook-like your behaviour is when ever the subject approaches psychiatry? 1. Are you aware that your arguments have no content, nothing that might be mistaken for science or good-faith debate, as a result of which you're making psychology look even more ridiculous that it already does? 2. Are you aware that my views on this topic now represent the mainstream? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/dsm-mental-health-research_b_3247960.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/dsm-mental... Ten years ago, I started a campaign against the use of Asperger Syndrome as a diagnosis, arguing that it was a particularly absurd diagnosis, able to reliably "diagnose" bright kids as mentally ill. After years of hearing from people like you who know nothing about the topic under discussion, Asperger Syndrome was abandoned for the reasons I gave. In this new effort, the DSM is being challenged for its lack of scientific rigor, and not just by me, but by people like the current chairman of the NIMH. Conclusion? You need a reality check. If psychologists were to read your replies to my posts, they would say, "Please -- don't be on our side."
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    > Ten years ago, I started a campaign against the use of Asperger Syndrome as a diagnosis, arguing that it was a particularly absurd diagnosis, able to reliably "diagnose" bright kids as mentally ill. After years of hearing from people like you who know nothing about the topic under discussion, Asperger Syndrome was abandoned for the reasons I gave. Asperger's wasn't "abandoned," it was folded into the broader spectrum of autism--and not by the field in general but only by the DSM, which you seem to distrust specifically, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with this claim. My Asperger's/autism diagnosis has made a huge difference to my quality of life, by helping me understand, deal with, and find support for my particular social, sensory, and mental-processing issues. The same is true for thousands of others, and we're kind of tired of you psychology deniers telling us that we don't exist.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > Asperger's wasn't "abandoned," it was folded into the broader spectrum of autism ... This is a common misconception. Asperger's wasn't folded into the parent category, instead those who were diagnosed with Asperger's, and the symptom constellation it represented, were folded into the parent category. Asperger's was abandoned. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag... Quote: "Some experts worry that the loss of the label [emphasis added] will inhibit mildly affected people from being assessed for autism. “The general public has either a neutral or fairly positive view of the term Asperger’s syndrome,” said Tony Attwood, a psychologist based in Australia who wrote “The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome” (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006). But if people are told they should be evaluated for autism, he went on, “they will say: ‘No, no, no. I can talk. I have a friend. What a ridiculous suggestion!’ So we will miss the opportunity to assess people.”" It's clear from the above that we're talking about a label, not a diagnosis. The label has been abandoned, and those seeking a diagnosis du jour with have to settle for Autism, universally regarded as undesirable. The thinking was that, if people with an Asperger's diagnosis knew they would be recategorized as autistic, this would reduce the diagnosis rate to something more consistent with reality, and the immediate motivation for the change was to halt an epidemic of nonsense diagnoses. > The same is true for thousands of others, and we're kind of tired of you psychology deniers telling us that we don't exist. You mean, along with all responsible psychiatrists and psychologists, all of whom now realize their mistake in allowing this diagnosis to come into existence? Your protest is on a par with someone who feels that his religious beliefs have been disparaged or discriminated against. I say this because Asperger Syndrome does not exist. The mental health profession now agrees and, by removing Asperger's from the DSM, has taken steps to signal clinicians to avoid use of the label. As to "psychology deniers", you may not be aware that the present chairman of the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... The first step was the elimination of Asperger's from the DSM. The second step is the elimination of the DSM from serious conversation among scientists. So, tell me, which part of this recitation of real events is causing you the most personal anguish? In closing, I want to say something that you ought to find reassuring -- you're not a diagnosis, you're a human being. The Asperger's story proves that diagnoses don't have rights and can be abandoned without warning. But human beings have inalienable rights, and cannot be abandoned. Start thinking of yourself as a human being -- see how it works out for you.
DanBC 12y ago
> In a real science, Diederik Stapel would have been exposed within days of entering a laboratory. You ignore the fact that scientific fraud exists in other sciences; and that this article talks about extending the use of this tool to different sciences.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > You ignore the fact that scientific fraud exists in other sciences It's not the topic under discussion, but scientific fraud certainly exists among scientists, with one important difference -- real scientists are exposed by comparing their work, their evidence, to reality. Stapel was exposed by comparing his words to his work -- work often not even conducted. There was never any serious prospect of comparing Stapel's work to reality, because his work didn't try to address reality -- that's science's purview. In science, reliant on physical evidence, how you describe the evidence shouldn't matter, the evidence should speak for itself. Reliable evidence should bring different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion. In psychology, the reason there's no consensus on the meaning of evidence is because the evidence is extremely poor, freeing different psychologists to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. > this article talks about extending the use of this tool to different sciences. Yes, that's true, they do talk about it. But until they actually try to apply it, it's not a legitimate topic of discussion. You haven't asked an obvious question -- where are the falsifiable psychological theories, theories that can be proven false in practical tests, but that resist falsification? Where are the time-tested theories that would make psychology one field, like physics or biology, and that would justify clinical practice?

by lutusp 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lutusp 12y ago
> You ignore the use of the detection method in other areas - areas that you would call science. The linked article suggests that psychologists may try to produce results by analyzing how actual scientists talk about their science, blithely ignoring the fact that examining the science itself would be more effective. Also, an advocate of what you suggest would be hard-pressed to produce tangible evidence for results in mainstream science, because there aren't any. Frauds in real scientific fields are exposed, not by comparing their words to their work, but by comparing the evidence to reality. > Do you realise just how kook-like your behaviour is when ever the subject approaches psychiatry? 1. Are you aware that your arguments have no content, nothing that might be mistaken for science or good-faith debate, as a result of which you're making psychology look even more ridiculous that it already does? 2. Are you aware that my views on this topic now represent the mainstream? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/dsm-mental-health-research_b_3247960.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/dsm-mental... Ten years ago, I started a campaign against the use of Asperger Syndrome as a diagnosis, arguing that it was a particularly absurd diagnosis, able to reliably "diagnose" bright kids as mentally ill. After years of hearing from people like you who know nothing about the topic under discussion, Asperger Syndrome was abandoned for the reasons I gave. In this new effort, the DSM is being challenged for its lack of scientific rigor, and not just by me, but by people like the current chairman of the NIMH. Conclusion? You need a reality check. If psychologists were to read your replies to my posts, they would say, "Please -- don't be on our side."
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  > Ten years ago, I started a campaign against the use of Asperger Syndrome as a diagnosis, arguing that it was a particularly absurd diagnosis, able to reliably "diagnose" bright kids as mentally ill. After years of hearing from people like you who know nothing about the topic under discussion, Asperger Syndrome was abandoned for the reasons I gave. Asperger's wasn't "abandoned," it was folded into the broader spectrum of autism--and not by the field in general but only by the DSM, which you seem to distrust specifically, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with this claim. My Asperger's/autism diagnosis has made a huge difference to my quality of life, by helping me understand, deal with, and find support for my particular social, sensory, and mental-processing issues. The same is true for thousands of others, and we're kind of tired of you psychology deniers telling us that we don't exist.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Asperger's wasn't "abandoned," it was folded into the broader spectrum of autism ... This is a common misconception. Asperger's wasn't folded into the parent category, instead those who were diagnosed with Asperger's, and the symptom constellation it represented, were folded into the parent category. Asperger's was abandoned. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag... Quote: "Some experts worry that the loss of the label [emphasis added] will inhibit mildly affected people from being assessed for autism. “The general public has either a neutral or fairly positive view of the term Asperger’s syndrome,” said Tony Attwood, a psychologist based in Australia who wrote “The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome” (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006). But if people are told they should be evaluated for autism, he went on, “they will say: ‘No, no, no. I can talk. I have a friend. What a ridiculous suggestion!’ So we will miss the opportunity to assess people.”" It's clear from the above that we're talking about a label, not a diagnosis. The label has been abandoned, and those seeking a diagnosis du jour with have to settle for Autism, universally regarded as undesirable. The thinking was that, if people with an Asperger's diagnosis knew they would be recategorized as autistic, this would reduce the diagnosis rate to something more consistent with reality, and the immediate motivation for the change was to halt an epidemic of nonsense diagnoses. > The same is true for thousands of others, and we're kind of tired of you psychology deniers telling us that we don't exist. You mean, along with all responsible psychiatrists and psychologists, all of whom now realize their mistake in allowing this diagnosis to come into existence? Your protest is on a par with someone who feels that his religious beliefs have been disparaged or discriminated against. I say this because Asperger Syndrome does not exist. The mental health profession now agrees and, by removing Asperger's from the DSM, has taken steps to signal clinicians to avoid use of the label. As to "psychology deniers", you may not be aware that the present chairman of the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... The first step was the elimination of Asperger's from the DSM. The second step is the elimination of the DSM from serious conversation among scientists. So, tell me, which part of this recitation of real events is causing you the most personal anguish? In closing, I want to say something that you ought to find reassuring -- you're not a diagnosis, you're a human being. The Asperger's story proves that diagnoses don't have rights and can be abandoned without warning. But human beings have inalienable rights, and cannot be abandoned. Start thinking of yourself as a human being -- see how it works out for you.

DanBC 12y ago

> In a real science, Diederik Stapel would have been exposed within days of entering a laboratory. You ignore the fact that scientific fraud exists in other sciences; and that this article talks about extending the use of this tool to different sciences.

lutusp 12y ago
> You ignore the fact that scientific fraud exists in other sciences It's not the topic under discussion, but scientific fraud certainly exists among scientists, with one important difference -- real scientists are exposed by comparing their work, their evidence, to reality. Stapel was exposed by comparing his words to his work -- work often not even conducted. There was never any serious prospect of comparing Stapel's work to reality, because his work didn't try to address reality -- that's science's purview. In science, reliant on physical evidence, how you describe the evidence shouldn't matter, the evidence should speak for itself. Reliable evidence should bring different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion. In psychology, the reason there's no consensus on the meaning of evidence is because the evidence is extremely poor, freeing different psychologists to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. > this article talks about extending the use of this tool to different sciences. Yes, that's true, they do talk about it. But until they actually try to apply it, it's not a legitimate topic of discussion. You haven't asked an obvious question -- where are the falsifiable psychological theories, theories that can be proven false in practical tests, but that resist falsification? Where are the time-tested theories that would make psychology one field, like physics or biology, and that would justify clinical practice?