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.
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.
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.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".
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.
Neuro-cog people do the same thing using EEGs, fMRIs, and a host of behavioral tests. It's really not all that different.
Psychology is somewhat of a science... yet sociology is just a backdrop for propaganda.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
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.
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.
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.
Personally, I'm not such a fan of positivism in social science.
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.
Here, maybe this will help a little. "What is the definition of science?" Answer that and you'll quickly answer your question too.