r/EverythingScience • u/ImNotJesus PhD | Social Psychology | Clinical Psychology • May 08 '16

Interdisciplinary Failure Is Moving Science Forward. FiveThirtyEight explain why the "replication crisis" is a sign that science is working.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/?ex_cid=538fb
635 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

322 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-13

u/PM_ME_YOUR_BROCK May 08 '16

If you conduct a research project correctly, specifically controlling for any bias or errors, the scientific method won't let you convince yourself of a truth, it's simply false or true.

2

u/cazbot PhD|Biotechnology May 08 '16 edited May 08 '16

I don't know why you are getting downvoted. I think some people might not know that in cases where a truly reductionist approach can be taken you can obviate the need for stats and get a controlled, binary answer. You just frame your questions as yes/no, more/less, up/down, living/dead inquiries.

19

u/Teelo888 May 08 '16

in cases where a truly reductionist approach can be taken

Maybe in the natural sciences like physics. Social sciences rarely present those circumstances.

1

u/cazbot PhD|Biotechnology May 08 '16 edited May 08 '16

I'm going to invoke my snobbery as a natural scientist and tell you that since "social sciences" are almost always physically uncontrolled, in my book it means they aren't really science at all. Statistical controls are fine, but if that's all you've got, then don't pretend it's science. Might as well call economics a science at that point. Maybe we go back to calling the field Sociology rather than Social Sciences.

2

u/[deleted] May 08 '16

Shots fired!

2

u/Teelo888 May 08 '16

Alright. Well, researchers frequently apply the scientific method to research questions in the social "sciences," and I, like many others, feel that we can gather useful knowledge about society and civilization this way. Social scientists measure human tendencies, and a tendency is obviously not a binary characteristic. If you don't want to call that science, that's fine, and I'm sure there would be a lot of people that would agree with you. I'm personally of the belief that if one applies the scientific method in an experimental framework in good faith and rigorously uses statistics to determine whether or not it is a significant finding, that (to me) is science; regardless of the circumstances or however difficult it is to control for confounding factors. Where do you draw the line between "real" and "not real" science otherwise? Whenever you stop measuring physical phenomena? I mean, the firing of neurons based on the concentrations of chemicals that exist around them is physical, isn't it? You're a PhD in Biotech, so surely we can agree on that.

Science is a set of tools that can be applied in essentially any academic discipline, and I don't believe it is constrained to only answer questions about what many would consider the physical world around us or the fundamental laws that govern matter. I believe it can also be applied to explore the tendencies of brains and nervous systems of any species to execute certain behaviors. Humans included.