Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Replication Crises
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 84 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Replication Crises (Read 7648 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8078
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #10 - Apr 2nd, 2018 at 10:47pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Your criticism of science, scientists, Darwinism, and AGW are of little interest to we who haven't gone over to the far side burnsred.


I have a master's in biological sciences and am only a dissertation short of having the Doctor title in front of my name.

The replicability crisis is real.

Peer review doesn't work.

People have made up a bunch of nonsense intentionally and got it the peer review gold star just to prove that.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/21/fake-academic-paper-published-in-libera...

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-journals-into-accep...
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36138
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #11 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 9:10am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Apr 2nd, 2018 at 9:07pm:
Yes, but many scientists and researchers are not doing that.  Especially in the social sciences.  The "Replication Crises" isn't my phrase.  It is a problem of concern to those who believe science should be scientific.
There is a problem with the "social sciences" not actually being scientific, but that's not what I was talking about.

Here's an example of the problem I see-

https://principia-scientific.org/pages-2k-hockey-stick-graph-validation-exposed-...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36138
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #12 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 9:18am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 2nd, 2018 at 10:47pm:
I have a master's in biological sciences and am only a dissertation short of having the Doctor title in front of my name.

The replicability crisis is real.

Peer review doesn't work.

People have made up a bunch of nonsense intentionally and got it the peer review gold star just to prove that.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/21/fake-academic-paper-published-in-libera...

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-journals-into-accep...
Your talking about peer review by people who aren't actually scientists. Cheesy

"Gender studies" is a part of which "scientific discipline"? Sociology? Psychology? Both? None of the above?

Of course basing government policy on "discoveries" in the "science" of "Gender Studies" has the same problems as basing government policy on fudged "results" from the study of the earths climate, and both seem to be a result of the government granting money to people who produce results that give the government an excuse to seize more power over us.

Nobody will accept your dissertation? Cry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4373
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #13 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 9:55am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 2nd, 2018 at 10:47pm:
I have a master's in biological sciences and am only a dissertation short of having the Doctor title in front of my name.



Great.  Me also, but in Ed Psych.

Quote:
The replicability crisis is real.

Peer review doesn't work.

People have made up a bunch of nonsense intentionally and got it the peer review gold star just to prove that.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/21/fake-academic-paper-published-in-libera...

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-journals-into-accep...


Everything has become politicized to the point that science is becoming meaningless.
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36138
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #14 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 9:59am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 9:55am:
Great.  Me also, but in Ed Psych.


Everything has become politicized to the point that science is becoming meaningless.
Not actual science-

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4373
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #15 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:05am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 9:10am:
There is a problem with the "social sciences" not actually being scientific, but that's not what I was talking about.

Here's an example of the problem I see-

https://principia-scientific.org/pages-2k-hockey-stick-graph-validation-exposed-...


The social sciences can indeed use the scientific method in research. 

The problem with global warming and evolution is that they are both highly speculative.  These fields cannot use the scientific method except on questions very peripheral to their central theses. 

Both of this scientifish fields rely on models.  They create models and try to fit known facts into them in order to make educated guesses about unknown facts.  Then when the real facts come out, they just change the model.  Meanwhile, they attack personally anyone who questions even the smallest parts of the theory. 

Any tax dollars spent on that kind of research should come out of set-asides for "faith-based initiatives."

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36138
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #16 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:21am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:05am:
The social sciences can indeed use the scientific method in research. 

The problem with global warming and evolution is that they are both highly speculative.  These fields cannot use the scientific method except on questions very peripheral to their central theses. 

Both of this scientifish fields rely on models.  They create models and try to fit known facts into them in order to make educated guesses about unknown facts.  Then when the real facts come out, they just change the model.  Meanwhile, they attack personally anyone who questions even the smallest parts of the theory. 



There is lots of evidence regarding the earth's past climate and the evolution of life on earth.

Many questions remain, just as they do in the field of modern physics.

Problems arise when trying to use past events, no matter how well documented, to predict the future.

Predicting how the known universe will come to an end is probably fun, and the predictions are almost certain to be wrong, but that doesn't make modern physics unscientific.

Speculating about how humans will evolve in the future makes good science fiction, and it's also likely to be wrong, but that doesn't make the study of the evolution of life unscientific.

Fudging the known evidence to make climate "models" predict what you want them to predict seems to be profitable, but it's unscientific and almost certain to be wrong.

How do the "social sciences" use the scientific method?

Edit: Tell me how the field of Educational Psychology uses the scientific method. Thanks.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2136
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #17 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:36am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 2nd, 2018 at 5:59pm:
Any honest competent scientist will replicate their own experiments before they publish, and maybe ask colleagues to look over their hypothesis and procedures to see if they did something obviously stupid.

Unless of course, as you say, the government granted them lots of money and told them what results were required...

That's fraud and should be prosecuted.

Honest scientists are still prone to fall for the same biases as the rest of us.  Yes results are check but never as thoroughly as the original research.   Folks generally don't have time and resources to do everything twice.

As to the OP, the biggest factor causing the replication crisis, is that no one pays to replicate.   Journals like to publish "new science" and funders don't want to pay for work that won't get published.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2136
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #18 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:40am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:21am:
How do the "social sciences" use the scientific method?

Edit: Tell me how the field of Educational Psychology uses the scientific method. Thanks.

Generally, social sciences use the scientific method by attempting to predict the results of observational studies.

A. observer some behavior.
B.  Say this behavior is likely caused by "X stimulus"
C.  Devise some experiment that will cause the behavior if it is cause by "X". 
D.  Se what happens.

Unfortunately people are messing messy and there are lots of confounding factors.  Doing that science that way is not easy.
« Last Edit: Apr 3rd, 2018 at 4:21pm by ahhell »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4373
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #19 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 11:42am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 10:21am:
There is lots of evidence regarding the earth's past climate and the evolution of life on earth.

Many questions remain, just as they do in the field of modern physics.

Problems arise when trying to use past events, no matter how well documented, to predict the future.

Predicting how the known universe will come to an end is probably fun, and the predictions are almost certain to be wrong, but that doesn't make modern physics unscientific.

Speculating about how humans will evolve in the future makes good science fiction, and it's also likely to be wrong, but that doesn't make the study of the evolution of life unscientific.

Fudging the known evidence to make climate "models" predict what you want them to predict seems to be profitable, but it's unscientific and almost certain to be wrong.

How do the "social sciences" use the scientific method?

Edit: Tell me how the field of Educational Psychology uses the scientific method. Thanks.


Don't get me started unless you are willing to read it all.  Please don't come back with another, "I only read the first sentence and a half, so I'm not sure what you mean"

The scientific method can be used by a researcher in educational psychology by conducting experiments in which a proposed or existing education intervention* is tested against other interventions and or against no intervention at all.

For example, my dissertation experiment is a test of the use of a specific method to teach math to students who speak English as a second language.  To do an experiment like that, the researcher recruits a sample of participants (which is not random, but comes from the target population of the study) and divides them into groups which must be done at random.  One group is given the proposed intervention and one is not.  Improvement in learning is measured through a pretest and a post test.

Once the have the mean (average) improvement for each group,  the researcher applies a complicated set of mathematical formulas to determine whether any difference is statistically significant.   Alternately, the sample could be split into three or more groups to measure several treatments against each other.

If one of the groups shows a statistically significant difference over the other, that is some evidence that the treatment is responsible for the difference.  But if the p-value is set at .05 (5%), then there is a one in twenty chance that the difference is caused by a fluke in the random sorting before the experiment.  In other words that the researcher accidentally placed better learners in one group or some other pre-existing difference among the participants. 

That's why there would need to be replication before presenting the treatment as "evidence-based" to decision makers.  The research will be peer-reviewed and published but one study is not enough evidence to know that the method is better than existing methods or even better than doing nothing.  So I should not rush out and start selling "Snarky's New Proven Way to Teach Your Muchachos Math!"  At least one or two more studies are needed and preferably many more.

Problem is there is less interest among researchers for building on the work of others.  Most replication studies are done by people who worked on the original studies but perhaps with different team members.  Obviously, that presents its own problems with bias. 

Did that answer your question or did you need more?




  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 84
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Replication Crises
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy