Read on Twitter
I'm back. In honor of KO'ing two hard, back-to-back deadlines, a Thread! A mini-thread! Of loosely connected papers and ideas:
On Scientific Uncertainty, Especially in Social Sciences & Psych
On Scientific Uncertainty, Especially in Social Sciences & Psych
In honor of us having JUST submitted this paper (it was 1 of the hard deadlines keeping me off Tw).
If research on controversial topics is suppressed, then how much "certainty" can you have in the published scientific literature?
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202009.0197/v1
If research on controversial topics is suppressed, then how much "certainty" can you have in the published scientific literature?
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202009.0197/v1
What's Best for Scientists ≠ What's Best for Science
From a force of psych science nature, @chrisdc77, who has done yeoman's labor, Atlas-like, lifting up Psych Sci from the dregs in which it found itself:
https://osf.io/jhr6y/
From a force of psych science nature, @chrisdc77, who has done yeoman's labor, Atlas-like, lifting up Psych Sci from the dregs in which it found itself:
https://osf.io/jhr6y/
How Scientific Literatures Perpetuate Scientific Myths.
In this blog, I retell the story of how a literature became filled w/articles touting the effectiveness of anti-depressants, even though half the "scientific literature" touted their effectiveness. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202001/how-create-scientific-myths-without-really-trying
In this blog, I retell the story of how a literature became filled w/articles touting the effectiveness of anti-depressants, even though half the "scientific literature" touted their effectiveness. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202001/how-create-scientific-myths-without-really-trying
And if you do work on socially or politically controversial topics?
It can be done (sometimes) but be prepared for the headwinds.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202005/political-biases-in-academia
It can be done (sometimes) but be prepared for the headwinds.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202005/political-biases-in-academia
Then again, sometimes it can't be done, or, more exactly, if you do it, you will be targeted by outrage mobs, have your work forcibly retracted &, possibly, get fired and/or never get hired in the first place.
Still high in "scientific certainty" anyone? https://medium.com/@leej12255/the-threat-to-academic-freedom-from-academics-4685b1705794
Still high in "scientific certainty" anyone? https://medium.com/@leej12255/the-threat-to-academic-freedom-from-academics-4685b1705794
From an individual academic's standpoint, its easy to JUST NOT STUDY CERTAIN TOPICS.
This pseudo-vindicates the apologists, who can then say "there is no discrimination against that work," which is literally true because it was never conducted!
http://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2019/05/jussim-et-al-2018-Unasked-Questions.pdf
This pseudo-vindicates the apologists, who can then say "there is no discrimination against that work," which is literally true because it was never conducted!
http://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2019/05/jussim-et-al-2018-Unasked-Questions.pdf
Registered Reports, in which researchers state their hypotheses, methods, and analyses BEFORE they conduct their studies DISCONFIRM hypotheses MASSIVELY more frequently than is found in regular papers, where scientists can make up hypos after the fact. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07118-1
and by "sharp rise in null findings" they mean this:
How's that feeling of "scientific certainty" doing?
How's that feeling of "scientific certainty" doing?
Does "scientific certainty" actually mean anything? (this paper is not easily accessible online, but if you want it, dm me, and I can get it to you. But the title/1st paragraph gets the point across.
Who is this Gianelli guy? Retired law prof. Who consulted on the Daubert case. "What," you ask, "is the 'Daubert case?"
Nothing much. Just the Supreme Court decision that set new standards for admission of scientific expert testimony in courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Nothing much. Just the Supreme Court decision that set new standards for admission of scientific expert testimony in courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Scientific Certainty: About So Many Things That Were Wrong
Maybe this is why @AliceDreger has argued that our motto should be "We are Uncertain!" https://www.chronicle.com/article/take-back-the-ivory-tower/
Of course, this does not mean all statements claiming the mantle of science are equally true.
Some really are more true than others. Figuring that out:
1. Is beyond the scope of this thread
2. Requires actually understanding the logic and methods of scientific fields.
Some really are more true than others. Figuring that out:
1. Is beyond the scope of this thread
2. Requires actually understanding the logic and methods of scientific fields.
Nonetheless:
Perhaps every time you hear or see the term "scientific certainty" you should ask yourself:
"Is what they are describing better thought of as 'Scientific Arrogance'?
The answer won't always be "yes." But it is the right question.
END.
Perhaps every time you hear or see the term "scientific certainty" you should ask yourself:
"Is what they are describing better thought of as 'Scientific Arrogance'?
The answer won't always be "yes." But it is the right question.
END.
