A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies...

[Darth Wong]

I didn't even know that there was such a thing as social engineering. What did it attempt to do?

There's no formally recognized field of social engineering (not surprising, since engineering licensing boards require objective methods and responsibility on the part of their members). However, "social engineering" occurs whenever someone tries to alter the fabric of society through the use of government programs, legislative changes, etc.

As I mentioned before, it rarely works, and even if it does, there are usually unforeseen consequences. In other words, if we judge social sciences by the effectiveness of social engineering (as we generally do for the real sciences; people judge science by technological progress), then they are a horrendous failure in every conceivable respect.

Another example of social engineering would be theoretically "designed" societal models, such as Marxism. Again, we're not seeing a litany of success here.

[johnmarkley]

The funny part is that scientists (real scientists, not social "scientists") aren't the ones encouraging the idea that something is only valid if it's a science. That's the kind of thinking that sociologists, psychologists and political "scientists" fall prey to. They think that the only way that what they do can be perceived as legitimate is to slap the "science" label on it.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Ludwig von Mises was writing about this very phenomenom back in the 1930's. He was talking specifically about economists trying to mimic hard sciences, but it can be applied to other social discplines as well. His argument was that social scientists (for lack of a better term) wanted to pretend that they could predict human action in the same way a scientist could predict pysical or chemical reactions, a phenomenom he dubbed "physics envy." (I've always loved that term. ) I can't speak for sociology or psychology, but innappropriate aping of physical science has definitely had a damaging effect on economics.

[weemadando]

I don't see how those things could be quantified in any way, much less with any guarantees of the outcome, like say, Newton's laws of motion or the general theory of relativity.

Generally its to do with finding correlations between voter choice and the actions of political actors. Its all to do with finding out whats more effective.

[johnmarkley]

Sure, how about "Political Studies"?

I like this. I certainly don't think the social "sciences" are worthless (I wouldn't be minoring in political science if I did), but I don't they should be called by same term as physics or chemistry. "Studies" is good because it describes the field without implying the precision and determinism of physical science.

[Durandal]

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Ludwig von Mises was writing about this very phenomenom back in the 1930's. He was talking specifically about economists trying to mimic hard sciences, but it can be applied to other social discplines as well. His argument was that social scientists (for lack of a better term) wanted to pretend that they could predict human action in the same way a scientist could predict pysical or chemical reactions, a phenomenom he dubbed "physics envy." (I've always loved that term. ) I can't speak for sociology or psychology, but innappropriate aping of physical science has definitely had a damaging effect on economics.

The idea that you can predict the state of an economy to anything even resembling acceptable engineering or scientific accuracy is utterly and completely laughable. If that was the case, all economics majors would be millionaires.

The fact is that the economy in a capitalist society based on stocks is determined entirely by the mood of investors on a given day. Granted, investors are somewhat predictable -- they'll panic at the slightest hint of bad news, but that still doesn't mean that we can make a model for economic growth and interactions, especially over the long term.

The mere existence of different economic and sociological schools of thought is enough to discredit them as real sciences. There aren't multiple schools of thought in physics or chemistry. There is objectivity and peer review. That's it.

The fact is that real science offers guarantees. Sure, we can never prove theories, but I'd more than happily take someone up on a bet about how fast an object will fall on Earth in a vacuum tube. There are no such guarantees in the grossly misnomered social sciences.

And, yes, I like the term "physics envy," too, because it only helps perpetuate the arrogance of hard science majors. I don't care what you say, we do tend to get arrogant because everyone tries to be like us. :)

By the way, why is it called "computer science"? Science is an endeavor to describe nature. Since when do computers occur in nature? When did Athlon XP's start growing on trees? When did C++ code start coming out of grass?

[Darth Wong]

And, yes, I like the term "physics envy," too, because it only helps perpetuate the arrogance of hard science majors. I don't care what you say, we do tend to get arrogant because everyone tries to be like us.

By the way, why is it called "computer science"? Science is an endeavor to describe nature. Since when do computers occur in nature? When did Athlon XP's start growing on trees? When did C++ code start coming out of grass?

The flipside of our society's "physics envy" (which has some meaningful basis) is our society's contempt for tradesmen (which does not have some meaningful basis). CS majors like the term because they don't want to admit that they're really computer technicians.

[tharkûn]

Durandal:
Minor correction there are schools of thought in physics. Copenhagen, Bohm, Many Worlds, etc. are all different schools of thought on quantum mechanics.

Likewise you have different schools of thought on strong theory.

The difference is schools of thought in hard sciences eventually wither and die. Normally it takes a generation, you have to wait for people to die but eventually lousy schools get tossed.

[Durandal]

Hm ... weird. The forum list shows Mike as making the last post, but when I display the thread, it shows my post last, with no extra pages, even after multiple refreshes. But, his post shows up in the Reply to post listing.

Oh well.

The flipside of our society's "physics envy" (which has some meaningful basis) is our society's contempt for tradesmen (which does not have some meaningful basis). CS majors like the term because they don't want to admit that they're really computer technicians.

Yes, people tend to think "tradesman = never went to school," which is blatantly false in many cases.

[Durandal]

Minor correction there are schools of thought in physics. Copenhagen, Bohm, Many Worlds, etc. are all different schools of thought on quantum mechanics.

That's because quantum mechanics is so speculative, at this point. It can afford different schools of thought, because there's really no hard evidence against any of them.

Likewise you have different schools of thought on strong theory.

Same as above. String theory, currently, cannot be tested. The energies involved are simply too immense.

The difference is schools of thought in hard sciences eventually wither and die. Normally it takes a generation, you have to wait for people to die but eventually lousy schools get tossed.

This is true. However, when you have the proper facilities to experiment, like Newton did, different schools of thought simply don't form.

[Nick]

That's because quantum mechanics is so speculative, at this point. It can afford different schools of thought, because there's really no hard evidence against any of them.

Same as above. String theory, currently, cannot be tested. The energies involved are simply too immense.

This is true. However, when you have the proper facilities to experiment, like Newton did, different schools of thought simply don't form.

Right then, so, by your reasoning, fundamental particle physics is not a science.

After all, our current methodologies and tools are inadequate to properly test the theories which the scientists are coming up with, and consequently, the predictions made by the theories cannot be tested, allowing the development of different schools of thought.

Applying the same reasoning you apply to psychology (and other studies of humans), since the testing apparatus is inadequate to properly test the theories, allowing the development of divergent schools of thought, any area of research incorporating significant unanswered questions is not a science! (Hmm, given that no-one can solve the general three-body equations, should we include Newtonian mechanics in that?)

And, I'm sorry Mike, but it is possible to have a science which cannot be used as the basis for reliable engineering. The science comes first. As the science progresses, and understanding improves, this understanding is translated into practical techniques, which then form the basis of improvements in engineering. Sometimes, it even goes the other way. Engineers do things in a particular simply because experience tells them it works - scientists then come along to try and figure why that way works, and other ways don't.

All that is required to have a science is to subscribe to the scientific method:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesise
3. Predict
4. Return to step 1.

If your subject is hard to observe accurately, then that will just slow your progress - it doesn't make it impossible. Errors in your observations lead to errors in your theories, which lead to errors in your predictions. Sure it's fuzzy as hell - but it's a shitload better than throwing your hands up in disgust and saying "too hard, I'm going home".

If you had a psychological problem, who would you go see? A classical Freudian psychoanalyst? Or a cognitive behaviour therapist? Or a psychiatrist?

I can tell you now - a close friend is going to do you just as much good as the first one. The second one actuallly has techniques which perform better than chance in reprogramming the instinctive part of your brain. The third can give you drugs which do the reprogramming in a rather more forceful manner. Why are the second two so much more likely to be effective? Why, because scientists have actually STUDIED humans, and tried to figure out what techniques are effective - usually by trial & error, because human biology is too complex to model effectively.

Sure, psychologists can't usually build decent mathematical models of things - our models of the weather are generally pretty crap, too. Does that mean modern meteorology is not a science? What about climatologists? Their subject is pretty damn complex, and their predictions are pretty lousy too, Do they also fail to meet your criteria for "scientists"?

Mike, Durandal, your definition of 'science' is ridiculously narrow - and rules out many, many things that any reasonable person would say are most definitely sciences. Hell, your definition even rules out logic as a field of science - because there are unanswered questions in that, too.

[Crazy_Vasey]

I never understood why computer science was called that myself and I'm doing a CS degree. Doesn't really matter much to me what it's called to be honest but supposedly once you get to a certain level it's just another branch of mathematics.

[Darth Wong]

Right then, so, by your reasoning, fundamental particle physics is not a science.

After all, our current methodologies and tools are inadequate to properly test the theories which the scientists are coming up with, and consequently, the predictions made by the theories cannot be tested, allowing the development of different schools of thought.

Some particle physics theories are testable. Those that aren't are considered "fringe science", and given little credence. How does this contradict anything we've been saying?

Applying the same reasoning you apply to psychology (and other studies of humans), since the testing apparatus is inadequate to properly test the theories, allowing the development of divergent schools of thought, any area of research incorporating significant unanswered questions is not a science! (Hmm, given that no-one can solve the general three-body equations, should we include Newtonian mechanics in that?)

No, it's a science whose practitioners have turned it into a joke. And given the hopeless methodologies in use, it will stay that way. I reiterate that you can write a paper for these "sciences" and use quotes as evidence. Need I explain why that is so very wrong?

And, I'm sorry Mike, but it is possible to have a science which cannot be used as the basis for reliable engineering. The science comes first. As the science progresses, and understanding improves, this understanding is translated into practical techniques, which then form the basis of improvements in engineering. Sometimes, it even goes the other way. Engineers do things in a particular simply because experience tells them it works - scientists then come along to try and figure why that way works, and other ways don't.

Of course; the use of empirical data is scientific! Social "scientists" create theories first, and don't care whether they work. And if a science is so unreliable that it cannot be used as the basis for any kind of application (ie- engineering), then it's a shitty science.

All that is required to have a science is to subscribe to the scientific method:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesise
3. Predict
4. Return to step 1.

You forgot other key criteria, such as "observe logical principle of parsimony", "make theories testable at least in principle", "restrict ourselves to the use of objective data", etc. Social "science" theories never incorporate the principle of parsimony and they are generally unfalsifiable, ie- you cannot even conceive of a piece of data which would conclusively disprove any one of them.

If your subject is hard to observe accurately, then that will just slow your progress - it doesn't make it impossible. Errors in your observations lead to errors in your theories, which lead to errors in your predictions. Sure it's fuzzy as hell - but it's a shitload better than throwing your hands up in disgust and saying "too hard, I'm going home".

If observational inaccuracy were the only problem with psychology/sociology, we would not be lambasting it the way we do.

If you had a psychological problem, who would you go see? A classical Freudian psychoanalyst? Or a cognitive behaviour therapist? Or a psychiatrist? I can tell you now - a close friend is going to do you just as much good as the first one. The second one actuallly has techniques which perform better than chance in reprogramming the instinctive part of your brain. The third can give you drugs which do the reprogramming in a rather more forceful manner. Why are the second two so much more likely to be effective? Why, because scientists have actually STUDIED humans, and tried to figure out what techniques are effective - usually by trial & error, because human biology is too complex to model effectively.

And this has to do with the social sciences ... how? I don't recall anyone saying that neurophysiology is not a science. We were talking about psychology and sociology.

Sure, psychologists can't usually build decent mathematical models of things - our models of the weather are generally pretty crap, too. Does that mean modern meteorology is not a science?

Modern meteorology is an applied science. The underlying sciences are legitimate.

What about climatologists? Their subject is pretty damn complex, and their predictions are pretty lousy too, Do they also fail to meet your criteria for "scientists"?

Compared to sociologists and psychologists, their predictive accuracy is stupendous. You are drawing false dilemmas.

Mike, Durandal, your definition of 'science' is ridiculously narrow - and rules out many, many things that any reasonable person would say are most definitely sciences. Hell, your definition even rules out logic as a field of science - because there are unanswered questions in that, too.

Logic is not a field of science; it is a tool which we use, like mathematics. And what "unanswered questions" do you refer to?

In any case, you are basing your entire argument upon a grotesque strawman distortion of our argument. We have been attacking social "sciences" on two fronts: 1) poor yet widely accepted method, 2) shitty results. Your rebuttal has been an attempt to A) generate a black/white fallacy by claiming that any science which is not perfect is therefore just as shitty as psychology or sociology B) ignore the fact that they do NOT practice the scientific method.

Try again.

[Nick]

In any case, you are basing your entire argument upon a grotesque strawman distortion of our argument. We have been attacking social "sciences" on two fronts: 1) poor yet widely accepted method, 2) shitty results. Your rebuttal has been an attempt to A) generate a black/white fallacy by claiming that any science which is not perfect is therefore just as shitty as psychology or sociology B) ignore the fact that they do NOT practice the scientific method.

Try again.

Then the problem is with the way your phrase your opinions. Both of you sound like you are saying that it is impossible to study those subjects scientifically (which I disagree with), rather than that pseudoscientific thinking is widespread in those disciplines (which I agree with).

As you say, I did leave several things out of my definition of the scientific method - but again, there is no inherent problem with applying those principles to fields involving humans. The fact that American & Canadian insitutions do a lousy job of enforcing scientific discipline on their adherents is no justification for your sweeping generalisations that ALL pschological science is worthless.

If you don't mean to be making sweeping generalisations, then pay more attention to the way you state your opinions - because the way both of you talk at the moment you sound like arrogant twits dismissing all observational study of humans as a pointless waste of time.

Yes, there is a lot of pseudo-scientific crap out there in these fields - that just means your critical thinking filters need to be slightly more alert. As with any science, the trick is to sort the psuedoscience from the good stuff. Take a look at the history of physics itself, or evolutionary theory in particular - a lot of dumb shit was espoused, and just as vehemently supported. That doesn't mean the people who were doing it right weren't scientists.

[Darth Wong]

Then the problem is with the way your phrase your opinions. Both of you sound like you are saying that it is impossible to study those subjects scientifically (which I disagree with), rather than that pseudoscientific thinking is widespread in those disciplines (which I agree with).

Perhaps the problem is with your reading comprehension, not our phrasing. Let me quote myself when I started this mini-tangent:

Here's a question for you: how many popular theories in social "science", psychology, or any other liberal-arts field have ever been conclusively debunked and discarded? Can you say: NONE? They're cyclical; they come and go. No theory is ever declared completely without merit and thrown away.

Liberal-arts may have a certain usefulness to society (as music does), but its practitioners often have a certain contempt for the scientific method which they believe makes them superior to scientists and engineers in many ways (don't pretend it doesn't exist; I lived in an artsie-dominated dorm in university). This blinds them to the usefulness and effectiveness of that method. The fact that they are seemingly incapable of EVER deciding that a theory (ANY theory) is simply wrong, and the fact that they have a collective belief in the use of quotes as "evidence" (again, let's not lie; I took enough liberal-arts electives in school to know that despite the obvious logical fallacy, quotes are considered "evidence" for the purpose of writing papers) are both serious indictments of their methods. This guy is merely highlighting those problems.

Nope, nothing in there about how it is impossible to study those subjects scientifically. But hey, if you would prefer to read things into my posts which aren't there and then accuse me of not phrasing them carefully enough to keep you from doing so, go right ahead.

If you don't mean to be making sweeping generalisations, then pay more attention to the way you state your opinions - because the way both of you talk at the moment you sound like arrogant twits dismissing all observational study of humans as a pointless waste of time.

And you sound like someone with a chip on his shoulder, because that's usually the case when someone reads things into statements that aren't really there.

Yes, there is a lot of pseudo-scientific crap out there in these fields - that just means your critical thinking filters need to be slightly more alert. As with any science, the trick is to sort the psuedoscience from the good stuff. Take a look at the history of physics itself, or evolutionary theory in particular - a lot of dumb shit was espoused, and just as vehemently supported. That doesn't mean the people who were doing it right weren't scientists.

And that dumb shit was put down. That's the whole point. The dumb shit in sociology is NOT put down, because in sociology and psychology (the two fields which I specifically mentioned, even though you arbitrarily took that to mean any form of science dealing remotely with humans, including physiology), they do not practice anything remotely resembling the method. This is not a problem of poor practitioners here and there; it is a systemic problem common to all practitioners, because they are TAUGHT to do it that way.

[Durandal]

There's a world of difference between meteorology and the social sciences. When you turn on a weather report with a forecast, you see numbers; you don't see, "It might rain," or "It'll be a nit nippy." You see, "30% chance of light showers, with highs reaching 65 degrees."

Those are testable predictions. Even if those predictions fail to meet observation, the fact that meteorologists can even generate those predictions with any amount of confidence is enough to put them leaps and bounds ahead of psychology and sociology. I haven't seen one single theory in sociology which actually makes predictions on how a society of any size will act using actual, testable numbers.

Granted, I can personally see psychology as becoming more useful than sociology. Human behavior is the result of chemical reactions, and chemical reactions are testable things. But my experience with its practitioners has told me that they don't know jackshit about the scientific method. When someone with a doctorate in what is supposed to be a "science" cannot recognize the difference between scientific fact and theory, then there are problems. Your average psychology student probably wouldn't have the slightest clue of how to form a theory linking chemical releases from the brain with behavior using chemical equations and numbers, and that is why the field isn't going anywhere.

[Nick]

And you sound like someone with a chip on his shoulder, because that's usually the case when someone reads things into statements that aren't really there.

Yeah, true - I tend to be ready to take offense on this particular topic

The dumb shit in sociology is NOT put down, because in sociology and psychology (the two fields which I specifically mentioned, even though you arbitrarily took that to mean any form of science dealing remotely with humans, including physiology), they do not practice anything remotely resembling the method. This is not a problem of poor practitioners here and there; it is a systemic problem common to all practitioners, because they are TAUGHT to do it that way.

Then I feel very, very sorry for Canadians and Americans if that is the state of the scientific humanities in your academic insitutions. Obviously, the view of these fields I formed studying cognitive science here in Australia is wildly different from what you perceive as being taught in your universities.

I mean we have our share of idiots too, but they aren't allowed to go around claiming to be professional psychologists or anything like that.

Ah well, different experiences creating very different views of something - I really do think you're underestimating the number of people who take a scientific approach to psychology and sociology though. The problem is that the ones who take the scientific approach always come across as very indecisive and wishy-washy, because they know their input data is lousy. Tentative conclusions don't play well with John Q. Public though, so the ones who get popular attention are usually the ones who are full of shit.

[Darth Wong]

Then I feel very, very sorry for Canadians and Americans if that is the state of the scientific humanities in your academic insitutions. Obviously, the view of these fields I formed studying cognitive science here in Australia is wildly different from what you perceive as being taught in your universities.

Does that mean that the use of quotes as evidence is strictly disallowed in Australia? That no paper in psych/soc faculties is permitted to do this even at the undergraduate level? Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I find that a bit hard to believe.

The problem is that the ones who take the scientific approach always come across as very indecisive and wishy-washy, because they know their input data is lousy. Tentative conclusions don't play well with John Q. Public though, so the ones who get popular attention are usually the ones who are full of shit.

It is true that the most well-publicized people are the idiots. But the point of the experiment mentioned at the top of this thread was that even "peer-reviewed journals" in that field have pitiful standards, and will accept the use of quotes as evidence for a theory.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Ummm.... Interesting paper.

Is his goal to debunk the entire non-scientific academia or just snipe at those that are labelled "sciences" such as Social Science or Political Science?

I think a little of both. Here's a question for you: how many popular theories in social "science", psychology, or any other liberal-arts field have ever been conclusively debunked and discarded? Can you say: NONE?

Two points:

1.) Autism was once thought to be caused by, 'cold, distant, emotionally unavaliable mothers.' That has since been proven wrong. It is no longer taught, except for the purpose of showing how faulty research can produce disaterous results. Phrenology, Instrospection, Lobotomies, etc. all have been discarded.

2.) You are too used to physical science. If two Hydrogen atoms react with an Oxygen atom you get water. And you will get water every single time. Not once is a million years will two Hydrogen atoms react with an Oxygen atom and produce a cheese burger with a side of chili fries. But humans are much more complex and that kind of shit happens all the time.

So, how do you study human behaviour? You can't take the brain apart and see how it works. Cause as soon as you take it apart you have a non-working brain. You could set up experients, but people act differently when they are being tested. You could just observe them in their natural habitate, but then you lack control. There's no perfect way, so you have to try different approaches and accept their limitations.

So, when you are done your research, what you end up with is not a law (objects accelerate towards the Earth at a rate of 9.8 m / s^2) but relationships (testosterone is associated with aggressive behavior.)

The problem comes when people confuse correlation with causation and publish preliminary findings as facts. (This happens a LOT with the media.) This happans more with psychology than with physica cause there's a lot more uncertainty with psychology. But it does happen in other sciences too, or do I need to bring up Cold Fusion.

Liberal-arts may have a certain usefulness to society (as music does), but its practitioners often have a certain contempt for the scientific method which they believe makes them superior to scientists and engineers in many ways (don't pretend it doesn't exist; I lived in an artsie-dominated dorm in university). This blinds them to the usefulness and effectiveness of that method.

See, that's funny, cause the first TWO chapters of my psychology text book talk about Critical Thinking and the importance of the Scientific Method.

The fact that they are seemingly incapable of EVER deciding that a theory (ANY theory) is simply wrong,

I'm afraid you're wrong there.

and the fact that they have a collective belief in the use of quotes as "evidence" (again, let's not lie; I took enough liberal-arts electives in school to know that despite the obvious logical fallacy, quotes are considered "evidence" for the purpose of writing papers) are both serious indictments of their methods. This guy is merely highlighting those problems.

So does every science. Did you personally prove every scientific law you've ever been taught?

So students say, 'Dr. Soandso discovered as a result of his experiement that blah, blah, blah.' Do you really expect students to replicate studies that can take decades just to past a 4 month course?

[Darth Wong]

1.) Autism was once thought to be caused by, 'cold, distant, emotionally unavaliable mothers.' That has since been proven wrong. It is no longer taught, except for the purpose of showing how faulty research can produce disaterous results. Phrenology, Instrospection, Lobotomies, etc. all have been discarded.

When psychology theories are proven wrong through neurophysiology, that is hardly a triumph for psychology.

2.) You are too used to physical science. If two Hydrogen atoms react with an Oxygen atom you get water. And you will get water every single time. Not once is a million years will two Hydrogen atoms react with an Oxygen atom and produce a cheese burger with a side of chili fries. But humans are much more complex and that kind of shit happens all the time.

Very true. How does this change the fact that psychology departments routinely accept bullshit that no normal scientist would accept?

The problem comes when people confuse correlation with causation and publish preliminary findings as facts. (This happens a LOT with the media.) This happans more with psychology than with physica cause there's a lot more uncertainty with psychology. But it does happen in other sciences too, or do I need to bring up Cold Fusion.

... which was immediately set upon by the scientific community and ripped to shreds in a matter of months. This is hardly proof for your implicit claim that the differences between psychology and real science are being exaggerated.

See, that's funny, cause the first TWO chapters of my psychology text book talk about Critical Thinking and the importance of the Scientific Method.

That's nice. How does that prove that it is being properly or consistently applied?

and the fact that they have a collective belief in the use of quotes as "evidence" (again, let's not lie; I took enough liberal-arts electives in school to know that despite the obvious logical fallacy, quotes are considered "evidence" for the purpose of writing papers) are both serious indictments of their methods. This guy is merely highlighting those problems.

So does every science. Did you personally prove every scientific law you've ever been taught?

So students say, 'Dr. Soandso discovered as a result of his experiement that blah, blah, blah.' Do you really expect students to replicate studies that can take decades just to past a 4 month course?

Of course not, but you're missing the point. In no scientific or engineering paper is a quote EVER acceptable as evidence. You may make reference to a scientific theory without re-proving it in order to save time, but you would only be shorthand-referencing the conclusions drawn from its data, not quoting snippets of its text.

You are trying to argue your way out of accepting the results of the experiment, which was to show that respected "peer-reviewed journals" in those fields can have utterly laughable standards.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

1.) Autism was once thought to be caused by, 'cold, distant, emotionally unavaliable mothers.' That has since been proven wrong. It is no longer taught, except for the purpose of showing how faulty research can produce disaterous results. Phrenology, Instrospection, Lobotomies, etc. all have been discarded.

When psychology theories are proven wrong through neurophysiology, that is hardly a triumph for psychology.

Uhh ... neurophysiology is part of psychology.

What do you think psychology is?

2.) You are too used to physical science. If two Hydrogen atoms react with an Oxygen atom you get water. And you will get water every single time. Not once is a million years will two Hydrogen atoms react with an Oxygen atom and produce a cheese burger with a side of chili fries. But humans are much more complex and that kind of shit happens all the time.

Very true. How does this change the fact that psychology departments routinely accept bullshit that no normal scientist would accept?[/qoue]

And elementary particles don't change their behaviour cause they want to please the tester.

The problem comes when people confuse correlation with causation and publish preliminary findings as facts. (This happens a LOT with the media.) This happans more with psychology than with physica cause there's a lot more uncertainty with psychology. But it does happen in other sciences too, or do I need to bring up Cold Fusion.

... which was immediately set upon by the scientific community and ripped to shreds in a matter of months. This is hardly proof for your implicit claim that the differences between psychology and real science are being exaggerated.[/quote]

And how long did it take to set up the cold fusion experiment? Compare that to psychology experiement which could take decades. You can't attack it immediately cause you can't test it immediately. But tests experiements are checked. Opinions are revised. Theories are rejected.

See, that's funny, cause the first TWO chapters of my psychology text book talk about Critical Thinking and the importance of the Scientific Method.

That's nice. How does that prove that it is being properly or consistently applied?[/quote]

And how do you prove it's being applied properly or consistently in other sciences?

You aren't attack the science of psychology, you are attacking poor application. Which I'll admit is far too common. Moreso in the media then in mainstream psychology.

<SNIP!>

You are trying to argue your way out of accepting the results of the experiment, which was to show that respected "peer-reviewed journals" in those fields can have utterly laughable standards.

Actually, I'm not. I do not deny that. I'm just saying that doesn't disqualify psychology as a science. Anymore than the existance of astrology means Astronomy isn't a science.

[Nick]

Then I feel very, very sorry for Canadians and Americans if that is the state of the scientific humanities in your academic insitutions. Obviously, the view of these fields I formed studying cognitive science here in Australia is wildly different from what you perceive as being taught in your universities.

Does that mean that the use of quotes as evidence is strictly disallowed in Australia? That no paper in psych/soc faculties is permitted to do this even at the undergraduate level? Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I find that a bit hard to believe.

If you refer to someone else's results, you are relying on the authority of the original source. Whether the reference is an equation, a quote, or a paraphrasing, the appeal to authority is the same.

The reason quotes are used, is that every time you rephrase something, you are applying your interpretation of what the original researcher said. The quotes are provided to give a bit of evidence that the researcher you are appealing to actually said what you are claiming they said.

In technical articles, quotes are less common - paraphrasing of other articles or books are presented on their own (this happens in psychology too). The advantage of using quotes is that it reduces the need to check references to other studies.

I'm not quite sure why you see quoting as different from any other appeal to authority (aka prior research). It is not a matter of quoting instead of interpreting - it is quoting as well as interpreting.

The problem is that the ones who take the scientific approach always come across as very indecisive and wishy-washy, because they know their input data is lousy. Tentative conclusions don't play well with John Q. Public though, so the ones who get popular attention are usually the ones who are full of shit.

It is true that the most well-publicized people are the idiots. But the point of the experiment mentioned at the top of this thread was that even "peer-reviewed journals" in that field have pitiful standards, and will accept the use of quotes as evidence for a theory.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/soc/inform ... ement.html

Oh yes, a fine example of good scientific literature. Please - the most basic of Google searches shows anyone with a brain that these guys are full of shit. The physicist should try the same shit with the APA - if he pulls that off, then I'll believe he has a point.

[Nick]

Ummm.... Interesting paper.

Is his goal to debunk the entire non-scientific academia or just snipe at those that are labelled "sciences" such as Social Science or Political Science?

I think a little of both.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html

This came up on the same Google search where I found that scary editorial from Social Text. Apparently Sokal's genuine targets were idiots like the editors of Social Text, who are trying to claim that historical and sociological factors have more influence on the conduct of science than actual physical reality does - and, in so doing, these idiots have utterly abandoned reason and logic.

[johnmarkley]

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html

This came up on the same Google search where I found that scary editorial from Social Text. Apparently Sokal's genuine targets were idiots like the editors of Social Text, who are trying to claim that historical and sociological factors have more influence on the conduct of science than actual physical reality does - and, in so doing, these idiots have utterly abandoned reason and logic.

It's worse than that. The Social Text guys don't merely claim that the conduct of science is subjective and controlled by social factors- they claim that physical reality itself is subjective, controlled by power relationships.

[johnmarkley]

Alan Sokal also wrote a very interesting book, called "Fashionable Nonsense" if memory serves, about the abuse of scientific and mathematical terms in postmodern philosophy. Well worth checking out.

[Darth Wong]

Oh yes, a fine example of good scientific literature. Please - the most basic of Google searches shows anyone with a brain that these guys are full of shit. The physicist should try the same shit with the APA - if he pulls that off, then I'll believe he has a point.

You mean, like Multiple Personality Disorder, in which the entire psychiatric profession threw Occam's Razor complete out the window for more than 20 years and concluded that multiple personalities were fucking independent, real sentient entities? I guess only a truly disreputable publication would ever support something like that