TenaceErbaccia t1_j1n1nb4 wrote
Reply to comment by No-Contribution-7871 in Childhood body mass index is unlikely to have a big impact on children's mood or behavioural disorders by giuliomagnifico
There is a difference in what kind of rigor can be expected though. Well over 90% of biology, chemistry, and physics experiments are controlled and replicatable. Social science data is a lot less clean cut.
No-Contribution-7871 t1_j1n40tc wrote
Certainly, yes. But I'll be devil's postmodern advocate and say to be wary of all science which claims to be wholly objective and without influence.
TenaceErbaccia t1_j1n5tg9 wrote
Scientific rigor is objectively important. All good science is viewed through the lens of skepticism. I am in complete agreement with that.
Buckets of salt is probably undue skepticism for lab experiments though. All things should be checked, some aren’t. Science does reward work that shows flaws in previous work though. I don’t believe headlines, but if I read a research article and the methods and results seem reasonable then I’ll believe it until other data contradicts it.
No-Contribution-7871 t1_j1nd6mq wrote
I didn't say that the buckets of salt should be aimed towards the objective data received from experiments, simply that they should be aimed at the all studies.
Data in itself is trivial in nature. Of course water freezes at 0 C and boils at 100 C, because that is part of what defines water. Performatively though, that very point is, although objective in one manner, used rhetorically. In the same fashion, data from objective studies must be interpreted by subjects which is where salt should be aimed at.
thruster_fuel69 t1_j1ne3x7 wrote
Love this thread, just want to mention my general response to this is other sciences have a fundamental truth in reality that social science currently can't achieve.
Not disagreeing that all science shouldn't get salt, but I stand by saying some, like social science, deserve buckets due to their nature.
shipsAreWeird123 t1_j1p2pyy wrote
The fundamental truths are all based on linguistics and your definitions of the things you're measuring, and then the science of the measuring tools and strategy.
There are so many flaws in all of our rodent experimentation. Sexism in medicine, what about a foundation of basic biology built mainly on studying male rodents and then extrapolating to humans.
Even physics when you get down to it ends up being an existential debate about the nature of the universe.And the more we discover, the weirder things get.
thruster_fuel69 t1_j1p2whd wrote
Atoms, cells, fundamental testable rules. Other fields have those.
[deleted] t1_j1pc2r0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1o0197 wrote
>Well over 90% of biology, chemistry, and physics experiments are controlled and replicatable.
This isn't the case. The replication crisis affects all fields
[deleted] t1_j1przbc wrote
[removed]
rarokammaro t1_j1oicz2 wrote
You need a source. You can’t just say that. There is a reproducibility problem in every major field so you don’t even know what you’re talking about.
tinnitustinnitus t1_j1ps1qe wrote
They don’t. Just tryna dunk on the “liberal” sciences is my guess tbh
doorknobman t1_j1odamy wrote
It’s much easier to run controls and perfectly sound experiments for hard sciences.
Social science experiments run into ethics issues fairly frequently. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be studied, but they do need to be interpreted differently.
gunnervi t1_j1p4w5a wrote
A good number of astronomy papers are inherently unrepeatable. You can have someone else double check your math, and if you're lucky, there will be multiple observations of the same event, but, uh, to put it simply, a star only explodes once.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments