|
|
|
|
|
|
by sbierwagen
1427 days ago
|
|
|
>First of all, preregistration is not a requirement for the scientific method, which has functioned well for centuries. As has been said before, the problem is that the scientific method is right eventually. It can and often does get stuck for decades at a time, if someone with, shall we say, durable beliefs gets tenure, amasses political power and shoves their rivals out of a field. The amyloid hypothesis is just the most recent example. Modern metascience practices (preregistration, blinding, banning "garden of forking paths" subgroup analysis, demanding high p factors and larger n) don't replace the scientific method, they're supposed to speed it up! But, by definition, these are all political issues, so they attract political arguments. |
|
|
I think this is just more data. If we're all wrong for a longer time, then the impact will be more clear.
I agree that modern additions like preregistration are helpful. I only wanted to remark that it is not a prerequisite for science.
> by definition, these are all political issues, so they attract political arguments.
People are good at gaming systems. We are naturals at recognizing patterns and will adjust our behavior to meet our goals. In that sense, social science may be targeting a moving object, almost like the difference between observing and not observing the atoms in a double slit test.
As hard as it may be in social science, the process of hypothesizing, observing and forming conclusions is still science. For some, it appears that is not science because a definite conclusion never arrives.
Which viewpoint is correct? I think it's up to you to decide. And, when you don't grant people that choice, you get an anti-science response, because people naturally reject being told what to think. Science, for me, is about asking questions, not necessarily arriving at a definitive result.