|
|
|
|
|
by mjburgess
397 days ago
|
|
A counter-point, in a certain sense: when the conclusions of scientific papers (in these softer science fields), contradict common sense, they tend to be unreproducible; the ones which don't, are. The problem with studying humans is, roughly, the central limit theorem doesnt work: properties of biological and social systems do not have well-behaved statistics. So all this t-test pseudoscience can be a great misdirection, and common sense more reliable. In the case where effect sizes are small and the data generating process "chaotic", assumptions of the opposite can be more dangerous than giving up on science and adopting "circumstantial humility". (Consider eg., that common sense is very weakly correlated across its practicioners, but "science" forces often pathological correlations on how people are treated -- which can signficantly mangify the harm). |
|
Citation needed?
I don't know what would lead to that conclusion. And it would seem to run counter to the entire history of the field of psychology, for example.