0
44

[–] gazillions 0 points 44 points (+44|-0) ago 

People live their entire lives spouting that stuff in absolute certainty. It's gospel and it's everywhere. You can't argue either. I's like arguing religion.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
12

[–] 22jam22 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Agree with you 100 percent trying to figure out the most complicated thing we knos of is absolute rubbish. Also there was another article on here saying alot of psuedo science mental health issues are fixed within a year with out treatment. I cant believe people are still giving kids ritilan based on psychologist studies.

0
9

[–] Selrisitai 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Voodoo, or social science. Pretty much the same thing.

11
5

[–] Super_Cooper 11 points 5 points (+16|-11) ago 

It's primarily a science occupied by women and cuckolded men. What did you expect?

1
4

[–] Yorn 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I agree with you. Ultimately a lot of psychology and even other established fields have to resolve their own scientific demarcation problems. Those of us in STEM are going to say obviously that something is "science" if it is falsifiable and follows the scientific method. But there are entire fields in anthropology, global warming, and the social sciences where falsification and the scientific method aren't used and research methods aren't held to the same rigour as STEM fields.

I've even tried to hold conversations with folks in very powerful positions in these fields and they will say things like "falsification has already been proven in global warming" which seems to show just a sheer incompetence in not only what we're asking of them, but in the actual definitions of the terms used. I'm becoming increasingly convinced these people are more charlatan than scientist.

That's not to say there aren't any uses of falsification or the scientific method, just that it is difficult to find people that are taking things seriously and not trying to just find the next "ego depletion"-like study.

1
15

[–] Gorillion 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Reminds me of the VOAT concern trolls and rage quitters who were posting and bitching during the week at how much smarter they were than everyone and how everyone is a dummy for not taking their rote arguments and links to "objective proof" seriously.

So little can be trusted at face value these days, that in some ways it's that "absolute certainty" that's the dead giveaway you're dealing with someone who is better at repeating things than thinking them.

2
3

[–] damnittohell 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

So little can be trusted at face value these days, that in some ways it's that "absolute certainty" that's the dead giveaway you're dealing with someone who is better at repeating things than thinking them.

Except vaccines and glyphosate. Both are just as awesome as low-fat diets were 20 years ago.

0
2

[–] dellcos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The more you know, the less you realize you do. You are exactly right. The people that are sure and won't deign to even acknowledge that they could be wrong are dangerous to society. They are almost always the least learned.

1
9

[–] vpoint 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It is religion. Any sect works like this

  • select few people who declare what is an acceptable source and what isn't thereby deciding what is truth
  • those who question are shunned while those agreeing are rewarded with praise reinforcing that behaviour
  • followers are told to reject those unbelievers and berate them too which reduces their ability to get out of it as they cut themself off opposite opinions.

0
1

[–] dellcos 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Doctors and scientists are in the VAST MAJORITY of cases no smarter than business students as an example.

The big difference is that most doctors and scientist types are the "teacher pet" type of personality. They listen to authority, they don't question it. They do what they are told. They aren't very good at examining data and coming to their own conclusion.

Most of the soon to be Drs my SO is finishing school with are glorified memorizers. Right now they are being told to remember all sorts of stuff that they'll remember and act on for the next 40 years with no skeptical eye at all.

0
2

[–] gazillions 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That makes perfect sense.

0
33

[–] Flat4Life 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago 

First thing I learned in Psychology was how to skew results to get more funding. We spent half the semester collecting data and then making it look good.

0
9

[–] Jowwy 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

This is why instead of relying on one individual study psychology relies on meta analysis of hundreds of studies which as most human behaviours have a normal distribution around some result.

Psychology isn't easy to research

0
6

[–] MediumBlargh 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ideally this is the case. In reality it frequently is not.

0
9

[–] iconwaste 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

My Psych courses taught me only one thing of real value. The legitimacy of the quote " Lies, Damn Lies! and Statistics."

1
3

[–] Selrisitai 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Dude, if you think it's bad in psychology, try looking at paleontology. Geez, it's bad.

11
-8

1
19

[–] 0x5f3759df 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

Can't say I'm too surprised. Many studies in psychology are done very sloppy.

0
10

[–] Men13 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I am actually surprised that almost half did get the same results. I was sure it'd be lower.

0
7

[–] 0x5f3759df 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It depends what kind of study you're talking about. If it's a case of reject/accept some hypotheses, you'd get 50% the same results if the results of the studies are completely arbitrary. If it was less than 50%, it would mean the correct answer is systematically the opposite of what the studies say, which would be very strange (and worrisome).

0
0

[–] iconwaste 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

True.

2
1

[–] Jurily 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

There hasn't been a single valid study in psychology since Freud tried to cure morphine addiction with cocaine.

0
16

[–] Jowwy 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Wrong.

1

Pavlov's animal study on conditioning.

2

The bystander effect studies

3

The similarity bias

And thats just off the top of my head, there's many (many) more. But I just need one to disprove your point so my job here is done.

1
0

[–] Thegunnersdream 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

At least it was probably a good time.

0
16

[–] rwbj 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

I really do think in general 'sciences' like sociology, psychology, and so on should be broken off into their own branch of academia. They're not science by any sense of the word since they rely exclusively on correlation. From those correlations they try to draw causation but without a foundation to build upon they are grasping, at best.

If mean for crying out loud we still have no idea what causes basic mental disorders like depression. A partially informed person might say a serotonin imbalance but that is complete and unadulterated speculation. We know that SSRIs have, for some people, show a positive effect but that's it. What's happening, or why? Nobody has even the foggiest. What are the longterm physiological consequence? When we don't even know what happens in the immediate term, you expect this question can be remotely scientifically approached? It's looser and looser correlations spun into causation.

Without any sort of causational foundation whatsoever, these 'sciences' are not science. This is a reason genetic engineering is even more disconcerting. It's like trying to tweak a computer by randomly soldering in various spots and seeing what happens. Even if the short run result seems to perform as desired, you ultimately have no idea what you actually did or are observing - it's again a pure correlation. By contrast I'd be the first to sign up for cybernetic augmentation since there's actually a causational foundation behind the technology.

1
9

[–] Antipodes 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I really do think in general 'sciences' like sociology, psychology, and so on should be broken off into their own branch of academia. They're not science by any sense of the word since they rely exclusively on correlation.

Before roughly Freud, these things were known as "Philosophy" and, more commonly, "Fiction". Also see: the acknowledgment that William Shakespeare, a fortysomething actor-cum-dramatist with no medical or scientific training whatsoever, was one of the world's first and greatest psychologists. Don't take it from me. That idea is fully endorsed by the lightweights over at The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/01/by-heart-measure-for-measure/384252/

That said, I've always found it amusing the way lefties selectively apply the tenets of science to their disciplines. "Correlation is not causation" is screamed when people notice certain ethnic groups seem to be more responsible for crime, but the same thing isn't said when they point out women don't earn the same as men due to Muh Soggy Knees.

1
8

[–] LiberalPenguin 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Yeh, they are not science and should never be called science. It's pretty clear that the people working in these fields wanted to be taken more seriously so tagged on science to their fields of study to make them more believable.

And we have TONS of trouble because of this. Economics, sociology, psychology etc have massive impact on our ways of life, and they are not founded on 1 iota of scientific merit. It's bullshit and I hate the world and everything in it...

...eh... so. yeh.

0
6

[–] MediumBlargh 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Economics, psychology, sociology do have some scientific basis, but the portion of them that has a strong scientific basis is frequently only a small portion of the practice, the rest often having only a weak scientific basis, or none at all. A lot of the headlines and hot-button issues in these subjects, unfortunately, fit into the latter categories. There's a lot of good work done in those fields(okay, well, maybe not sociology these days), but you won't see a lot of it because they're either doing "boring" stuff, or just working practical applications of the things that are well supported.

0
1

[–] Virtueandanarchy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You learn about ethics from those things. There is no such thing as a moralizable "way of life" that comes directly from science for economics,sociology and psychology to even be threatening.

0
15

[–] SilverBanana 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

We need to have more repeated experiments. It is obviously problem because nobody gets famous or get a lot of funding for repeating somebody else's study.

I really wish more tax dollars would go into institutions that impartially tests and publish everything good, regardless of whether it is expected or not.

0
3

[–] CeepsNo 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Couldn't agree more, and it's true of other fields as well, not just psychology. Education needs a serious overhaul.

0
7

[–] PetTheBadger 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Basically this. I really like the Rosehan experiments where they claimed to send fake patients to an asylum and the asylum identified like 50 people as fakes. Yet in the end they didnt send a single one.

0
1

[–] MorpheusGodofDreams 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's almost like a big joke.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] Men13 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is a problem with all science, the <.05 p value is shit

That's why not all science uses the <.05 p value. Only the "soft" sciences do. Physics, for example, uses nothing of the sort. The whole field of "statisticians" who are here to squeeze every last p value from the very limited data that is so... needed in the soft sciences - is non-existent in physics.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] anoncastillo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What's the study?

0
4

[–] LiberalPenguin 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The scientific community shouild reward the scientists which repeated the study with as much praise and acknowledgment as the ones making the study. As in: mentioned in all papers on the study etc.

Also: scientific papers should refrain from publishing studies which haven't been repeated yet. It's pretty obvious thing to do, but alas....

0
5

[–] Gorillion 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah, a paper being published in a journal should not be the first criteria for it's value or worth. It should be that Prof X and Y from Testing Laboratory Z have signed off on it. And the paper earns a higher grading the more it has been tested and repeated by different teams. Like a Triple A rating for the highest.

0
3

[–] cybergarp 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This is a problem with all science, the <.05 p value is shit - I'm in favour of Bayesian statistics instead.

Throwing stones at frequentists methods does not resolve the fundamental problems facing science today which you refer to as the "filing effect". Using Bayesian statistics will result in the same issues. The economist has the best presentation I've seen of the issue: in How Science Goes Wrong.

There is a simple immediate solution: If you receive public funds, your data must be published with public access. Give folks a year to get their publication out, then the data goes public. Publish grants proposals with resulting data. You don't publish data, no more grants for you. I would go further and require that code assets produced on public funds must be published open as well.

The more difficult issue is that we need to work towards accepting and publishing null results, and replications.

1
5

[–] iconwaste 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Anthropology is the same religion, different sect. According to one of my old professors race is a myth. A mere social construct to legitimize slavery. The social sciences are almost completely co-opted by social Marxist now. No objectivity,all woo. Feels not reals.

load more comments ▼ (24 remaining)