Re:Harvard ethics prof fabricated multiple behavioral scienc...
by JumpCrisscross on Monday July 10, 2023 @12:54PM
(#36669119)
> Social science is non-replicable because the parameters are too fuzzy. (People are more diverse than electrons)
Social scientists tolerate their peers who see themselves as agents of change more than as scientists. A Stanford education specialist, who wrote California's new mathematics standards for public schools, framed--among other things--a well-reasoned takedown of one of her papers [1] as personal attacks [2].
Consider the same happening in physics. Paper published. Critique follows. Is there any world where a physicist maintains respectability by ignoring the content of the critique while claiming harassment?
Yet that's not only tolerated in many social sciences, it's the norm. Add to that lucrative consulting gigs, and researchers have a perverse incentive to (a) extrapolate N=2 studies of hung-over undergrads to corporate America and geopolitics and (b) personally attack anyone who dares challenge their premise.
Social scientists tolerate their peers who see themselves as agents of change more than as scientists. A Stanford education specialist, who wrote California's new mathematics standards for public schools, framed--among other things--a well-reasoned takedown of one of her papers [1] as personal attacks [2].
Consider the same happening in physics. Paper published. Critique follows. Is there any world where a physicist maintains respectability by ignoring the content of the critique while claiming harassment?
Yet that's not only tolerated in many social sciences, it's the norm. Add to that lucrative consulting gigs, and researchers have a perverse incentive to (a) extrapolate N=2 studies of hung-over undergrads to corporate America and geopolitics and (b) personally attack anyone who dares challenge their premise.
[1] https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pd...
[2] https://joboaler.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj286...