It’s interesting how all the comments and critiques towards SSH have to do with a lack scientific studies, while so many concepts that are broadly accepted have little scientific proof or that have been dubiously researched are broadly accepted. For example the five love languages are often quoted and accepted as fact. There are a host of others. When it comes to most non-mathematical realities like engineering or biology, at this point most of it can be thrown in the trash.
Seems very obvious. It could probably be more charitably summarized as "papers that are most likely to be citedare controversial, and thus more likely to be wrong/unreplicable".
But either way, critical hit on the dialectical argument against GOLD STAR SCIENCE
Ego depletion didn't make it, huh? Growth mindset, too? The latter has been useful in teaching and discussing but I never liked the original book. Especially the disparagement of the "fixed" mindset which strikes me as akin to Kahnemann's System 1. That system makes mistakes, of course, but it's fast which is often more important.
Big tech has similar problems for similar reasons.
A close friend in a big tech company reports that "which Indian shall we fire today?" has become a standard question from his boss.
The irony is he is using the AI because as unreliable as it is, it is still better than the Indians: faster, more accurate, less prone to bullshitting him.
We joked that with all the billions that the military and big tech have spent on making a machine without a conscience, that never says no, that never questions orders, that will say yes to any instruction no matter how insane, that will invent excuses without remorse; for all their hundreds of billions spent, they have invented Indians.
The move to qualitative methodology is social science is complete as the second generation workers do not look at the quality of the project but instead its ideological adherence. Surveys and epidemiological work does not get publications and grants. The journals are full of incoherence. The only thing worth reading are the prepublication drafts and clinical reports.
"The Grand Inquisitor" all over again, the ideological policemen attacks the source of their own authority. It doesn't get more blatant than stripping James Watson, DNA guy, of his titles for daring to say DNA does stuff. Thanks scientistry, that'll really make me believe you now.
Yes, the real criteria for grants and publication are purely political, and the politics of the average scientist are about the same as the politics of the average HR Karen.
"papers were cited 300 times more than replicable ones. And the citation advantage persisted even after the replication failure was published."
When you start with a broken premise like A != A, you can "prove" anything. Starting with a false study allows any result, providing a scientific "reproductive advantage" over real science.
Without a controlling factor actively fighting fraud, fraud will take over the system.
It sounds like you’re telling me that standing in a bathroom stall and power-posing like Superman for five minutes won’t suddenly make people see me the way they see an alpha male.
I already knew it didn’t work when they tried replacing 007 with a black woman—I didn’t see an “alpha,” I just saw a regular woman. I figured maybe she hadn’t power-posed long enough.
And with “growth mindset”—isn’t this just Darwin filtered through some Thomas the Tank Engine “I think I can” energy? As if believing hard enough is how the fish eventually grew legs and rode that bicycle out of the water.
If the idea is that posterior magnitude produces dominance perception, then this would imply it wasn’t sufficient by any baseline. Search your feelings—you know it wasn’t enough. The dominance was supposed to be strong with this one. The Force did not, in fact, awaken.
A similar issue is the amplification of bad protocols that give false positive results/type 1 errors.
What's the incentive to do extra work correcting a protocol when the bad one gives you more publishable results? You'll be encouraged to switch to the bad protocol, since it's already published. And it's probably from a large, well funded lab and university. Those extra false results really help a resume.
This has been the case for archaeology/anthropology, too. It’s probably not a coincidence that, like the social sciences, over the last 50 years they have been filled with and inverted by women and other clown world minions.
"Social Psychology - Current estimated garbage rate: 85-90%"
The garbage rate of the output is probably equaled by the garbage rate of the people in a given field. In the field of psychology it certainly seems true, though it might be even worse. When I enrolled to study psychology ten years ago, about 25% of the original class of 56 dropped out within six months, driven out by the stupidity and evil of the field itself, its teachers, and most of the students. It's likely worse now.
Physics has wasted 40 years on string theory, producing a mass of papers too numerous to count. Hard to top that.
Cosmology has blown a full century based on the ridiculous notion that stars are balls of plasma. They aren't; they're composed of hydrogen in a lattice.
Physics and mathematics thrive on breakthroughs in new disciplines, but those are vanishingly rare. If you wish to "contribute to the field," you have to either actually stumble on something revolutionary and impossible to rejecy, or you have to iterate on the last guy's fiction.
When you just look at it without any preconceived notions, a full lunar eclipse looks like a power cycle. The monthly lunar cycle is just the same or similar in slow motion.
40 years? Special Relativity is essentially repackaging of Lorentzian transforms so they fit in hyperbolic rotation matrices. Literally nothing new in theoretical physics for a century, just meaningless esoteric math. The complexity is really just a mathematical nonsense shield so people don't pick up on the game.
I think it’s precisely because science did not professionalize. Medicine formed a profession. So did law. With the exception of research and development in industry, such as heavy engineering, the pharmaceutical sector, chemicals, or consumer goods, science remains largely the domain of the Academy, which as we know has been utterly corrupted in the past 75 years or so in much of the developed world.
Licensure imposes a bar to entry and continuationin a field, low though that bar may be. It also provides some means for recourse. Apart from those effects, licensure solves little else.
It’s interesting how all the comments and critiques towards SSH have to do with a lack scientific studies, while so many concepts that are broadly accepted have little scientific proof or that have been dubiously researched are broadly accepted. For example the five love languages are often quoted and accepted as fact. There are a host of others. When it comes to most non-mathematical realities like engineering or biology, at this point most of it can be thrown in the trash.
Fake papers have more dramatic results, so are cited more?
Seems very obvious. It could probably be more charitably summarized as "papers that are most likely to be citedare controversial, and thus more likely to be wrong/unreplicable".
But either way, critical hit on the dialectical argument against GOLD STAR SCIENCE
It seems this research is more important to humanity than the latest Monster Control.
Ego depletion didn't make it, huh? Growth mindset, too? The latter has been useful in teaching and discussing but I never liked the original book. Especially the disparagement of the "fixed" mindset which strikes me as akin to Kahnemann's System 1. That system makes mistakes, of course, but it's fast which is often more important.
Big tech has similar problems for similar reasons.
A close friend in a big tech company reports that "which Indian shall we fire today?" has become a standard question from his boss.
The irony is he is using the AI because as unreliable as it is, it is still better than the Indians: faster, more accurate, less prone to bullshitting him.
We joked that with all the billions that the military and big tech have spent on making a machine without a conscience, that never says no, that never questions orders, that will say yes to any instruction no matter how insane, that will invent excuses without remorse; for all their hundreds of billions spent, they have invented Indians.
The move to qualitative methodology is social science is complete as the second generation workers do not look at the quality of the project but instead its ideological adherence. Surveys and epidemiological work does not get publications and grants. The journals are full of incoherence. The only thing worth reading are the prepublication drafts and clinical reports.
"The Grand Inquisitor" all over again, the ideological policemen attacks the source of their own authority. It doesn't get more blatant than stripping James Watson, DNA guy, of his titles for daring to say DNA does stuff. Thanks scientistry, that'll really make me believe you now.
Yes, the real criteria for grants and publication are purely political, and the politics of the average scientist are about the same as the politics of the average HR Karen.
"papers were cited 300 times more than replicable ones. And the citation advantage persisted even after the replication failure was published."
When you start with a broken premise like A != A, you can "prove" anything. Starting with a false study allows any result, providing a scientific "reproductive advantage" over real science.
Without a controlling factor actively fighting fraud, fraud will take over the system.
It sounds like you’re telling me that standing in a bathroom stall and power-posing like Superman for five minutes won’t suddenly make people see me the way they see an alpha male.
I already knew it didn’t work when they tried replacing 007 with a black woman—I didn’t see an “alpha,” I just saw a regular woman. I figured maybe she hadn’t power-posed long enough.
And with “growth mindset”—isn’t this just Darwin filtered through some Thomas the Tank Engine “I think I can” energy? As if believing hard enough is how the fish eventually grew legs and rode that bicycle out of the water.
Come on, man!
That ass was a bit more than regular.
Historically speaking, that’s not a large ass.
Historically speaking as in "all of human history", or "in Bond films", or in "what you know about of history"?
If the idea is that posterior magnitude produces dominance perception, then this would imply it wasn’t sufficient by any baseline. Search your feelings—you know it wasn’t enough. The dominance was supposed to be strong with this one. The Force did not, in fact, awaken.
The respective power from the size of a female posterior is on a bell curve.
A similar issue is the amplification of bad protocols that give false positive results/type 1 errors.
What's the incentive to do extra work correcting a protocol when the bad one gives you more publishable results? You'll be encouraged to switch to the bad protocol, since it's already published. And it's probably from a large, well funded lab and university. Those extra false results really help a resume.
Science as cargo cult.
What percentage of "The Science" is the clown world inversion and/or social justice grant-seeking compared to for-profit malice?
Anything that can be completely wrong and nothing catastrophic happens or no one goes to jail.
This has been the case for archaeology/anthropology, too. It’s probably not a coincidence that, like the social sciences, over the last 50 years they have been filled with and inverted by women and other clown world minions.
Contra the last 70 years habit in the social sciences "new means relevant and good. Old means irrelevant and bad." The older the study, the better.
History is mostly trash post 1990.
"Social Psychology - Current estimated garbage rate: 85-90%"
The garbage rate of the output is probably equaled by the garbage rate of the people in a given field. In the field of psychology it certainly seems true, though it might be even worse. When I enrolled to study psychology ten years ago, about 25% of the original class of 56 dropped out within six months, driven out by the stupidity and evil of the field itself, its teachers, and most of the students. It's likely worse now.
Physics has wasted 40 years on string theory, producing a mass of papers too numerous to count. Hard to top that.
Cosmology has blown a full century based on the ridiculous notion that stars are balls of plasma. They aren't; they're composed of hydrogen in a lattice.
Physics and mathematics thrive on breakthroughs in new disciplines, but those are vanishingly rare. If you wish to "contribute to the field," you have to either actually stumble on something revolutionary and impossible to rejecy, or you have to iterate on the last guy's fiction.
Nibmeister, can you please recommend a source where I can learn about stars as hydrogen lattices? I am intrigued.
https://www.youtube.com/@SkyScholar
Thank you!
I also like this guy, but no one knows what the sun is.
We can say what it isnt from spectrograph. Falsification doesn't yield a recipe
So we’re left with “Neti, Neti”
Thinking you know what the sun is made out of changes nothing in any endeavor.
The drive to Know leads people to become believe anything that might work and doesn't make them look foolish. Nothing to do with reality
But we know its not a gas because no spectral bands.
Wasting time must be the point. If fusion isn't powering the stars, why waste even more time on it?
I don't know what stars are. I do know what they aren't, because the Official Story is the one thing that isn't true.
They are powered by electrical currents just like a florescent light
Yes, I figured something like that. Electromagnetism seems to be the primary force operating in this realm. Gravity is fake.
Here's something cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkLizr7YQaU
When you just look at it without any preconceived notions, a full lunar eclipse looks like a power cycle. The monthly lunar cycle is just the same or similar in slow motion.
Radically different phenomena.
Ed Witten.
40 years? Special Relativity is essentially repackaging of Lorentzian transforms so they fit in hyperbolic rotation matrices. Literally nothing new in theoretical physics for a century, just meaningless esoteric math. The complexity is really just a mathematical nonsense shield so people don't pick up on the game.
I think it’s precisely because science did not professionalize. Medicine formed a profession. So did law. With the exception of research and development in industry, such as heavy engineering, the pharmaceutical sector, chemicals, or consumer goods, science remains largely the domain of the Academy, which as we know has been utterly corrupted in the past 75 years or so in much of the developed world.
A government or industry license wouldn't change that. Government research grant money simply doesn't care about the veracity of the studies.
Professional fields like law and medicine are corrupt in their own way. Longtime readers of Vox will have a number of examples.
Licensure imposes a bar to entry and continuationin a field, low though that bar may be. It also provides some means for recourse. Apart from those effects, licensure solves little else.
Geology is the only hard science that offers licensing. That license is the equivalent of the professional engineer license.
Thank you, that is interesting to know.