4 ms·

From the article it felt like nobody had called BS because they didn't understand the math at all, not because they were afraid of their careers or something. I

by wmt 12y ago

From the article it felt like nobody had called BS because they didn't understand the math at all, not because they were afraid of their careers or something. It is extremely rare that a researcher tries to debunk an article because they realise they don't understand differential mathematics. This is actually almost a bigger problem! Being scared of debunking others can be somewhat easily corrected if there's enough will, but if the bulk of psychology researchers don't understand enough mathematics to design unbiased studies and interpret data, the results are random at best.

MichaelGG 12y ago
But debunking aside, why would a paper allow such amazingly precise claims (5 significant digits, and a precise ratio on "happy thoughts"?!?!) without having independent mathematicians review it?
- gumby 12y ago
  Because the social sciences are not sciences and many (not all) of its practitioners, especially academics, have science envy. (I say that as someone who got an undergraduate degree in the humanities, so I don't look down on them). The sad thing is that if psychology were considered a research discipline in the way physics was 500 years ago, it could still help people! Up through the era of Newton and the Royal Society physics didn't even a specialized name -- it was still observational ("butterfly-collecting"); theories were mostly simple and non-predictive. That didn't mean the people were dumb, they were simply busy building the foundations of an edifice without any blueprints. A few years ago I read a bunch of Sanskrit & Arabic mathematics papers from about 500-1500 BCE. None of them contained a proof; they were essays and (in particular the Baghdad ones) collections of observations. But they did eventually help lead to a field of mathematics. There is no shame in that -- there is glory.
TheLarch 12y ago
My impression is that psychology is bankrupt as an academic pursuit. They have no axioms. Neuroscience is getting results and appears poised to eclipse psychology completely.

by wmt 12y ago

MichaelGG 12y ago

But debunking aside, why would a paper allow such amazingly precise claims (5 significant digits, and a precise ratio on "happy thoughts"?!?!) without having independent mathematicians review it?

gumby 12y ago
Because the social sciences are not sciences and many (not all) of its practitioners, especially academics, have science envy. (I say that as someone who got an undergraduate degree in the humanities, so I don't look down on them). The sad thing is that if psychology were considered a research discipline in the way physics was 500 years ago, it could still help people! Up through the era of Newton and the Royal Society physics didn't even a specialized name -- it was still observational ("butterfly-collecting"); theories were mostly simple and non-predictive. That didn't mean the people were dumb, they were simply busy building the foundations of an edifice without any blueprints. A few years ago I read a bunch of Sanskrit & Arabic mathematics papers from about 500-1500 BCE. None of them contained a proof; they were essays and (in particular the Baghdad ones) collections of observations. But they did eventually help lead to a field of mathematics. There is no shame in that -- there is glory.

TheLarch 12y ago

My impression is that psychology is bankrupt as an academic pursuit. They have no axioms. Neuroscience is getting results and appears poised to eclipse psychology completely.