Is scientific consensus being ignored in the United States?

[russ_watters]

If you reject any scientific results for unscientific reasons, I would say you are anti-science. "I don't like it, therefore I think it is wrong" is as anti-scientific as it can get.
You can ignore scientific results for scientific reasons - like poor analysis methods, a very low repetition rate in the given field, and so on. That is perfectly fine (as long as the reasons are justified).

Minor quibble/clarification: "ignoring" scientific results is not the same as saying they are wrong. A choice to ignore scientific evidence in favor of, for example, economic reality, might be ok too, and is largely a matter of personal values/opinions.

 

[mfb]

Sure.

If a study concludes "X leads to Y (p<0.05), based on our test sample of 10 individuals without proper control group and with 20 tested possible relations", then I ignore it. I don't say the claimed effect is wrong. X might lead to Y. But the study does not help exploring that.

 

[fresh_42]

If a study concludes "X leads to Y (p<0.05), based on our test sample of 10 individuals without proper control group and with 20 tested possible relations", then I ignore it. I don't say the claimed effect is wrong. X might lead to Y. But the study does not help exploring that.

Better stay away from medical studies though.

 

[Student100]

If you reject any scientific results for unscientific reasons, I would say you are anti-science. "I don't like it, therefore I think it is wrong" is as anti-scientific as it can get.

I wouldn't go that far, I would say they're anti-whatever. There are some scientists who do good work in their field who're completely anti-evolution or anti-GMO's, even though the consensuses and evidence is overwhelming as far as I'm concerned.

Ask them about homeopathy, acupuncture, GMO's, magnetic wristbands, Airborne, if the moon landing was real, and whether we've been visited by aliens. Do you think the results will be different?

-Dave K

I would expect that if you gathered 100 people and ask them that some would believe the scientific consensus on A, B, and C, while rejecting D and E. While others would accept B, C, D, while rejecting A and E. So makes some accept climate change but believe in the benefits in homeopathy at the same time? Is it really a lack of science education at that point? Or is something else going on?

Are you suggesting that all research presented in psychology or neuroscience are invalid? If you can point to poor methodology, poor analysis methods, or lack of replicability as a reason to be skeptical for some (if not many) of research in psychology or neuroscience. But don't believe in any? That is an anti-science position you are taking.

I haven't seen any research that is reproducible, has predictive power, or useful. There is also a complete lack of agreement on the foundations from those fields. If you have such findings, please share.

You've got a problem with statisticians, like me?

Haha, forgive me for playing devils advocate so we don't become EchoForums™.

 

[gleem]

I haven't seen any research that is reproducible, has predictive power, or useful. There is also a complete lack of agreement on the foundations from those fields. If you have such findings, please share.

Just a point of clarification. Have you actively sought any psychosocial research for predictive power? Can you support your statement that there is a complete lack of agreement on the foundations from these fields?

 

[BillTre]

I myself do not believe in any of the research presented by the soft "sciences" (psychologists - and it's many sub-fields like neuroscience, political science, sociologists, etc.)

Are you suggesting that all research presented in psychology or neuroscience are invalid? If you can point to poor methodology, poor analysis methods, or lack of replicability as a reason to be skeptical for some (if not many) of research in psychology or neuroscience. But don't believe in any? That is an anti-science position you are taking.

I haven't seen any research that is reproducible, has predictive power, or useful. There is also a complete lack of agreement on the foundations from those fields. If you have such findings, please share.

I think you are completely off base with this.

I have worked in both Psychology labs and Neuroscience labs (both can be in Neuroscience Institutes, like one where I worked).

To begin with, most Neuroscience labs are just biology labs (anatomy, physiology, behavior, development, genetics). A few involve actual psychological variables (psychophysics, cognitive psych). They all have generated reproducible results and publish in peer reviewed journals.
I have published studies 20 or 30 years ago, which are being continuously repeated and reproduced as my reagents (monoclonal antibodies that label embryonic anatomy) are used in the analysis of new experiments.

As an undergrad, I worked in a Visual Psychophysics lab. They measure things like thresholds of human perceptual awareness (a psychological thing involving the consciousness) under different conditions and relate them to what is known of the underlying Neurobiology. A lot of highly reproducible numbers were generated there.

Cognitive and Perceptual Psychology has been very usefully paired with brain imaging techniques (of anatomy and activity) to show areas associated with particular tasks. These kinds of studies are relevant to medicine in that they enlighten issues of brain function.

WRT the Conceptual Foundations of Psychology and Neuroscience: (to me anyway) it is the biological processing of information (in the nervous system: sensory inputs, motor outputs, in between stuff, anatomy and physiology of the neural network, etc.) and (psychologically) how a behaving organism works from the inside.
How the individual human information processing system aware of external states, its internal states, and how it generates behavior.
Seems to me, this would cover most issues.

 

[mfb]

I wouldn't go that far, I would say they're anti-whatever. There are some scientists who do good work in their field who're completely anti-evolution or anti-GMO's, even though the consensuses and evidence is overwhelming as far as I'm concerned.

Anti-evolution: Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn. They might have found some place where they can work, but I don't think they are good scientists if they think evolution does not exist.
What is "anti-GMO"? Questioning the existence of them? Questioning some claims about their safety?

 

[Student100]

Just a point of clarification. Have you actively sought any psychosocial research for predictive power? Can you support your statement that there is a complete lack of agreement on the foundations from these fields?

Sure, check out: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

Or just go to http://www.apa.org/ and tool around on the research highlights section or check out some of the recommend publications. Read the publications, it isn't hard to find research published in the same journal that directly contradicts previous works. In fact, whatever your position on a psychology topic it isn't hard to find research published that directly supports it.

To begin with, most Neuroscience labs are just biology labs (anatomy, physiology, behavior, development, genetics). A few involve actual psychological variables (psychophysics, cognitive psych). They all have generated reproducible results and publish in peer reviewed journals.

I don't see how their labs being similar to biology labs matters, but okay, examples? What predictive power do they have when applied beyond the study group?

I have published studies 20 or 30 years ago, which are being continuously repeated and reproduced as my reagents (monoclonal antibodies that label embryonic anatomy) are used in the analysis of new experiments.

Okay, examples? Not sure what monoclonal antibodies have to do with psychology.

As an undergrad, I worked in a Visual Psychophysics lab. They measure things like thresholds of human perceptual awareness (a psychological thing involving the consciousness) under different conditions and relate them to what is known of the underlying Neurobiology. A lot of highly reproducible numbers were generated there.

Examples? What is human consciousness anyway?

Cognitive and Perceptual Psychology has been very usefully paired with brain imaging techniques (of anatomy and activity) to show areas associated with particular tasks. These kinds of studies are relevant to medicine in that they enlighten issues of brain function.

fMRI nonsense? Don't get me started. But examples?

WRT the Conceptual Foundations of Psychology and Neuroscience: (to me anyway) it is the biological processing of information (in the nervous system: sensory inputs, motor outputs, in between stuff, anatomy and physiology of the neural network, etc.) and (psychologically) how a behaving organism works from the inside.
How the individual human information processing system aware of external states, its internal states, and how it generates behavior.
Seems to me, this would cover most issues.

To you, maybe. To another it's something else entirely. How many schools of thought are there for modern psychology foundations? Ten? Is it possible to find research that supports a position, then turn around and find research that disagrees? Certainty in these fields, it's done here all the time.

Anyway, I said what I said to illustrate that science isn't some binary choice. You don't have to accept all of science to be science literate. Let's try to not to derail the thread too much.

Anti-evolution: Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn. They might have found some place where they can work, but I don't think they are good scientists if they think evolution does not exist.
What is "anti-GMO"? Questioning the existence of them? Questioning some claims about their safety?

Safety of GMO's, just like anti-vaccinationers believe in vaccines but question there safety.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I would expect that if you gathered 100 people and ask them that some would believe the scientific consensus on A, B, and C, while rejecting D and E. While others would accept B, C, D, while rejecting A and E. So makes some accept climate change but believe in the benefits in homeopathy at the same time? Is it really a lack of science education at that point? Or is something else going on.

It's beyond just education, I think. Culturally, there's a complete lack of respect for, and even fear of science. It's a cynical view of scientists as non-humans in white coats in pristine labs dissecting live animals with sadistic pleasure. It's a view that scientists are just geeks with book smarts and no common sense to understand what is "obviously" true. It's an antipathy even towards intelligence. It's just not cool.

Americans literally brag about how stupid and lazy they are in order to appear more normal in front of other Americans They assume anybody who is doing science or math must have some freakish level of intelligence, because having passion about science and actually working hard at it doesn't make sense to them. It's just not normal and it's certainly not admirable.

-Dave K

 

[Evo]

Thread closed.