Social Science
Is more social than science. Seems that 40% of studies cannot be replicated. Yet, they get published in scientific journals.
4 Responses to “Social Science”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 29th, 2018 at 5:09 pm
So it’s kind of social. Demented and sad, but social.
November 29th, 2018 at 5:48 pm
A very high percentage of these “studies” are withdrawn after post publication review by the journal audience.
Peer review for most of these papers is rubber stamp or non-existent.
Modern progressive social science isn’t science. Its religion.
November 29th, 2018 at 5:51 pm
I have a rather cynical attitude on this: if the name of the discipline contains the word “science” it is not science. Plenty of examples: social science, political science, Christian science…
The converse does not necessarily hold, for example it isn’t at all clear whether economics is a science.
Another test I like: if the political leanings of the practitioner matter, it isn’t a science. (Among other things, this indicates that climatology is no longer a science, though it was until a few decades ago.)
December 3rd, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Replication is in crisis even outside of social science, in fact.
Part of the reason, beyond the obvious publish-or-perish pressures, is that it’s easy to fool yourself into thinking you found something significant even when you’re actually trying to be rigorous; science ain’t easy, when you’re dealing with things messier than directly applied physics where it works or it don’t.
The social “sciences” aren’t science, mostly, and are nonsense, yes, but the problem is … bigger than that, and very difficult to address.
(See here, where the target is psychology, but the principles apply broadly.
And publishing in any of the sciences has never required that someone replicate first – peer review is about someone, at best, looking over your findings to see that they’re plausible and there’s no glaring holes in the logic or process.
There’s never been even the idea that they should replicate your findings before you get published.