Maybe it's just me, but it seems that more often than not people in the fields of psychology and social sciences will abuse the scientific method in order to justify their own inane BS. Am I right or wrong? Please explain, thanks.
physicsdude30 said:So I'd think psychology could be compared along those same lines, even if more of a soft science, but if they make falsifiable hypotheses in peer-review journals than that would be considered the scientific method.
EEG experiments run with about a 100 or more trials are pretty standard in cog-neuro experiments, though the presence or control and experimental groups depends on whether the experiment needs it.although you can't directly observe thought process, you can observable behavior, which if a type of experiment can be repeated/verified over and over again then there may be something there.
story645 said:I think you need to differentiate between the many different types of psychology...
EEG experiments run with about a 100 or more trials are pretty standard in cog-neuro experiments, though the presence or control and experimental groups depends on whether the experiment needs it.
Man, you're hanging out with the wrong psychologists if you think it's surprising that researchers would use science to test claims. The kind of study you mention isn't a novelty, it's standard and has been for ages.physicsdude30 said:Just like in the Medical Field where they have an experimental and control group to control for third variables, I found it interesting the same thing was done to test hindsight bias in victim blaming.
Neuro-cog people do the same thing using EEGs, fMRIs, and a host of behavioral tests. It's really not all that different.In areas of the natural sciences there are things we can't study directly, but are rigorously falsifiable through indirect observation and we can say "this is the best explanation for all of the evidence".
story645 said:Man, you're hanging out with the wrong psychologists if you think it's surprising that researchers would use science to test claims. The kind of study you mention isn't a novelty, it's standard and has been for ages.
story645 said:Neuro-cog people do the same thing using EEGs, fMRIs, and a host of behavioral tests. It's really not all that different.
Char. Limit said:Psychology is somewhat of a science... yet sociology is just a backdrop for propaganda.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
brainstorm said:The sad thing about sociology is that in an effort to gain scientific credibility, many sociologists have embraced complex statistical methods that make their research appear to be rigorous and objective when in fact what these models do is distract from critically reasoning about the theoretical assumptions in the model and background theory.
Phrak said:I think it would be enterprising to set up an experiment in psychology/sociology that would measure (be an appropriate definition) the degree of subjective bias that enters into conclusions of psychology/sociology. To this end, I would propose that the experiment should use Peer Expectations as the biasing agent. That is, the experiment would examine how published papers, say, are bias is such a way as to be judged worthy of positive references by others who also publish upon the same subject.
Is anyone getting the idea?
Andre has called this groupthink, and that's appropriate. (If you disagree on my interpretation of your meaning, Andre, let me know.) Those who fail to fit within the group will find themselves out of the group and out of a job in their profession of choice. And even before this, academic chances are diminished.
Anyone foolish enough to take up such an experiment, attacking one's support group, and truthfully publish the results, will find him/herself in similar straits. Been there; done that, many times, in similar circumstances.
Phrak said:Nowhere do you mention cooking data, which I find very common--today even, and most rewarding. It's a lot easier to start with a goose than decorate a chicken to look like a goose with words and statistics.
Then there are cases which use no data at all, and are purely gleeful imagination.
In psychology we have hypnotic regression.
In sociology, my favorite is the Social Text/Alan Sokal exposure.
brainstorm said:Personally, I'm not such a fan of positivism in social science.
Phrak said:Now this is what I'm talking about. There are -Isms. They have advocates. These advocates are -Ists. And this is where we part company, because no matter how many words are throw about, it doesn't change what is.
rhit2013 said:Here, maybe this will help a little. "What is the definition of science?" Answer that and you'll quickly answer your question too.
unmovedmover said:Don't forget theoretical physics can get very speculative too..
brainstorm said:The only kind of "science" that isn't speculative is science whose history has been documented and validated according to academic authorities. The actual practice of scientific thought and experimentation is always speculative in some manner, even if it is just repeating a known procedure to verify results. Beyond that, some modification of experimental designs and/or theoretical parameters is the basis of progress. Nevertheless, the academic model of "learning existing knowledge" reframes science as its history so that students can study approaches and models that have had successful results. This is somewhat confounding, imo, in that students come to see good science as a final product instead of a critical process. The point isn't whether thought is speculative or not, it is the critical rigor in the speculation that matters. Speculating that the universe might have been created by unicorns because you think it's a neat idea isn't a rigorous thought experiment. Speculating that particles or light behave a certain way in order to flesh out the implications to compare them with known observations is more scientific.
The same kinds of rigor can be applied in social science thought. Social science will never deliver perfect law-like predictions because of human creativity and free will, but that is not really the point of science. If anything, the point of science is to establish when and how something behaves deterministically and when it doesn't. Then, science goes on to theorize and test explanations and predictions in a way that attempts to produce ever better models of the phenomena in question. If physicists think social science is soft because humans don't behave as deterministically as atoms, then they are really just shirking the scientific project of dealing with this fundamental aspect of human behavior and rigorously pursuing models that work better than mechanical determinism - which social science has been working on in rigorous ways for quite a while now.
unmovedmover said:I totally agree. Speculation is really how we got where we are today. I did not mean speculation in a sense similar to speculation in the financial market. I meant in a philosophical sense. That is, PURE REASONING. Which I think is what you meant by speculation too right? As to theories that have not been "validated", they are still science as long as they have falsifiability. There are no right number of positive outcomes that can affirm the proposition, but one negative outcome can be enough to raise doubts on the proposition. I definitely agree that social sciences are legit sciences.
aquitaine said:Maybe it's just me, but it seems that more often than not people in the fields of psychology and social sciences will abuse the scientific method in order to justify their own inane BS. Am I right or wrong? Please explain, thanks.