[alasarmas]

Let’s take the perfect paper as an example. This “impossible” paper is the product of Science Done Right. The authors previously registered their hypotheses and methods. The data are collected in the most rigorous fashion. The analyses and the data are all available to the public, and review shows that everything is in fact perfect. The conclusions of the paper are supremely consequential.

Does rational policy immediately change based on the conclusions of this paper? I argue no! Maybe discussions start immediately, confirmation is sought, probably many additional studies with the express intent of confirming the result of the first paper are launched. However, there is no such thing as one paper that needs zero additional support from the community.

[nradov]

I agree. Good public policy can never be fully rational or science based. There is always a necessary element of emotion, intuition, and forecasting that goes beyond science.

[AlbertCory]

I'm not sure what your point is, but I think it's "I don't like Real Science, because it doesn't immediately lead to the outcomes I like."

As for "additional support from the community" that's not the solution -- it's the problem. Almost by definition, "the community" isn't qualified to support the paper; only to advocate for their preferred actions.

[shoemakersteve]

I think you misunderstood the parent comment. The first part reads as if you're replying to a different comment, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what was said.

For the second part, they were talking about the scientific community, supporting the paper by reproducing results. Not regular Joes saying "I support this paper" or whatever, if that's what you were thinking.

[AlbertCory]

OK. The word "community" is ambiguous here. You read it as "scientific community" which perhaps is what was intended.

"However, there is no such thing as one paper that needs zero additional support from the community."

[BenFranklin100]

You’re off base here. No single study should ever be used as a basis for policy. Real science is a slow deliberative process that incrementally arrives at the truth. Input from the broader community in the form of confirmatory studies and stringent fact checking is very much part of the process, especially in complex fields like biology and psychology.

[AlbertCory]

Biology and psychology should not be in the same sentence. Only one is a real science.

If you meant "scientific community" then I have no issues. I was reacting to all the "The Science is settled!" articles during the pandemic by people from outside it.

[InSteady]

>Only one is a real science.

Human psychology is a messy business, but when research is conducted earnestly and rigorously according to the scientific method then it is science by definition.

You can find a discipline problematic and unworthy of your interest without actively gatekeeping it, by the way.

[AlbertCory]

> You can find a discipline problematic and unworthy of your interest without actively gatekeeping it, by the way

Such patronizing. Unworthy of a real scientist.

When their "experiments" generally don't replicate, then it's not a science. Maybe similar to Colbert's word "truthy," what psychologists do is sciencey.

[BenFranklin100]

Ha. You have far too high opinion of the field of biology. Go look at the current Dana Farber mess.

[BenFranklin100]

The fact your argument is even controversial is indicative of how science has become politicized.