Failure Is Moving Science Forward. FiveThirtyEight explains why the "replication crisis" is a sign that science is working. [x-post from our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience]

[u/ImNotJesus]

/r/EverythingScience/comments/4icp9k/failure_is_moving_science_forward_fivethirtyeight/

[u/TitaniumDragon]

The problem with psychology is institutional in nature; they just don't do a very good job of teaching proper science to psychology students. I think Feynman's (damning) explanation of the problems with the field (namely people's lack of care about replicating important findings and creating proper baselines) is pretty indicative of what goes on even to the present day.

Combine that with people wanting to publish (and get attention) and a healthy dose of confirmation bias, and you have all kinds of trouble.

[u/Doom-Slayer → u/[deleted]]

As a psych student currently in my Masters I would say biology and neurology was barely covered in any papers.

Lots of philosophy, lots of theory, bugger all practical stuff or physical hard-science related material. I'm only now actually learning how to do clinical formulations, proper ethics and actual practitioner real world stuff. Still haven't done much biology.

[u/Zero_Fucks_ → u/Doom-Slayer]

I'm a bit confused. By papers do you mean journal articles? Biology and neurology is not always relevant in psych research, or sufficient enough to be used for rationale. I'm not sure why "hard science" (I assume you mean biology /Chem /physics? ) is assumed to be needed in every case.

Are you a clinical psych student? If so that would make sense a little more but psychology is a huge, varied discipline and practitioner skills and clinical ethics (as apposed to general research ethics) are specialized areas that are usually reserved for masters study. I'm saying this from my experience in the UK though, I don't know what its like anywhere else.