Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba...
by lupire on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @07:40PM
(#27534738)
The important problems are hard. Avoiding psychology because it's messy is like the metaphor of only searching for your lost keys under a lamppost.
Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba...
by bingidingi on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @02:54PM
(#27532106)
Think about how loose medical science used to be (and for how long)! leeches, bloodletting, miasma, ridiculous enemas and all sorts of outright nonsense. We've got a lot more mistakes to make, but social sciences will improve too.
Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba...
by ch4s3 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @03:07PM
(#27532231)
To be fair, no one was using statistics and the scientific method to support bloodletting, or miasma theory.
Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba...
by Karrot_Kream on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @09:16PM
(#27535287)
No, but let's not forget that much of statistics was originally invented to provide a rigorous underpinning for eugenics. Pearson, who invented many of the most commonly used statistical results, was a prominent eugenicist and contributed greatly to its ideas.
Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba...
by ch4s3 on Thursday June 17, 2021 @09:15AM
(#27539236)
That doesn't mean that statistics aren't a useful tool for checking the strength of evidence, or building a case for a hypothesis.
Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba...
by Karrot_Kream on Thursday June 17, 2021 @02:54PM
(#27543133)
Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that your findings will be as useful or useless as your premise. If you're trying to use statsitics to prove pseudoscience, well, it's still pseudoscience at the end of the day. (NB: I don't mean that psychological sciences are pseudoscience.)
It all just feels so 'loose' compared to the physical sciences.