A suspicion I had about the field during my bachelor that turned out to be a big deal

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I have a solution to this problem:

If an academic publishes a study that cannot be replicated, we lock him in a cage with a crocodile.

Well, fortunately for academics, the paper above mentions a little bit less scary solutions than that ?

One proposal is mandatory replication before publishing (and a lack of successful replication would mean no publishing of the original study). One problem with this (out of several) is that it can negatively impact innovation. For example, a researcher who likes to pursue wild ideas could eventually strike gold and produce a lot of scientific progress, but it's generally high-risk with respect to replicability, as most wild ideas fail. So if he is forced to replicate before publishing, he will be incentivized to pursue safer and less innovative ideas that are more likely to replicate (because publishing is how you survive as a scientist). So there is a constant struggle between innovation, replication and publishability; scientific progress, truth and survival of the scientist. Also, some studies are not possible to replicate in principle (e.g. studies on the election).

Edited September 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, fortunately for academics, the paper above mentions a little bit less scary solutions than that ?

One proposal is mandatory replication before publishing (and a lack of successful replication would mean no publishing of the original study). One problem with this (out of several) is that it can negatively impact innovation. For example, a researcher who likes to pursue wild ideas could eventually strike gold and produce a lot of scientific progress, but it's generally high-risk with respect to replicability, as most wild ideas fail. So if he is forced to replicate before publishing, he will be incentivized to pursue safer and less innovative ideas that are more likely to replicate (because publishing is how you survive as a scientist). So there is a constant struggle between innovation, replication and publishability; scientific progress, truth and survival of the scientist. Also, some studies are not possible to replicate in principle (e.g. studies on the election).

I perfer it my way.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

54 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, fortunately for academics, the paper above mentions a little bit less scary solutions than that ?

One proposal is mandatory replication before publishing (and a lack of successful replication would mean no publishing of the original study). One problem with this (out of several) is that it can negatively impact innovation. For example, a researcher who likes to pursue wild ideas could eventually strike gold and produce a lot of scientific progress, but it's generally high-risk with respect to replicability, as most wild ideas fail. So if he is forced to replicate before publishing, he will be incentivized to pursue safer and less innovative ideas that are more likely to replicate (because publishing is how you survive as a scientist). So there is a constant struggle between innovation, replication and publishability; scientific progress, truth and survival of the scientist. Also, some studies are not possible to replicate in principle (e.g. studies on the election).

   This is where something like micro dosing psychedelics for innovation and insights, or even using CRISPR technology to create more genomes for open mindedness and curiosity in tbe next generation is beneficial.

[actuallyenlightened]

On 2023-09-10 at 3:56 PM, Carl-Richard said:

came to very different conclusions for each questionnaire 

The same person given the same questionnaire could answer completely differently after having a meal. It's also common for people to answer in idealistic ways that don't actually reflect themselves. In general social science works best with very large sample sizes (>10k) through quantifiable observations rather than questionnaires.

[mostly harmless]

On 11.9.2023 at 10:34 PM, StarStruck said:

Psychology is NOT a real science to begin with. It is a soft science and it can't be compared to the hard sciences. It is subjectivism through the lens of objectivism.

I would not say that. It depends what you do exactly. 

First off, no branch of science is automatically proper science. You have unscientific practices in physics, biologies, etc..

Moreover psychology is not one single thing. Cognitive psychology attends to neurological mechanisms of cognition (vision, learning, etc.).

Then you have the therapeutic branches. And you have the behavioral science branch.

Using questionnaires requires the skill to ask questions in a way that you get as close to facts as possible. Obviously, not everybody is equally good at it. And then you have interpretation. A lot can go wrong here.

The most convincing method in my book here is using measurable facts and statistics. That is not that 'soft' of a science if done right.