If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how bad it was in 1999

Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba... by dennis_jeeves on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @08:44PM (#27535102)

LudwigNagasena, to you it may be obvious ( as it was to me). However I discovered ( much to my disappointment) that it is not obvious to career 'scientists'. A fool with a phd is still a fool. What used to the domain of primarily religions (rituals, superstitions etc.) is now the domain of several offshoots, one of which is mainstream science.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba... by austhrow743 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @09:09PM (#27535253)

Is this coming from judging peoples actions or discussion with acquaintances and colleagues, or in discussion with trusted friends who are career scientists?

My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you think psychological science is bad, imagine how ba... by dennis_jeeves on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @09:25PM (#27535332)

Mostly based on the 'science' out there. I probably know about 3 career scientists, I think, which is probably not a good sample.

>My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.

I can agree that a lot of it may be probably incentive based vs 'scientists' just not being smart enough. But is is hard to glean what the proportions are. I still suspect ( based on a general assessment of people both known and on the internet) that it is the latter.

[ Parent | on HN ]