Vaniver comments on This is why we can't have social science - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Costanza 13 July 2014 09:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (82)

Comments (82)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 13 July 2014 11:29:38PM *  7 points [-]

Rather, the problem is that at least one celebrated authority in the field hates that, and would prefer much, much more deference to authority.

I don't think this is true at all. His points against replicability are very valid and match my experience as a researcher. In particular:

Because experiments can be undermined by a vast number of practical mistakes, the likeliest explanation for any failed replication will always be that the replicator bungled something along the way.

This is a very real issue and I think that if we want to solve the current issues with science we need to be honest about this, rather than close our eyes and repeat the mantra that replication will solve everything. And it's not like he's arguing against accountability. Even in your quoted passage he says:

The field of social psychology can be improved, but not by the publication of negative findings. Experimenters should be encouraged to restrict their “degrees of freedom,” for example, by specifying designs in advance.

Now, I think he goes too far by saying that no negative findings should be published; but I think they need to be held to a high standard for the very reason he gives. On the other hand, positive findings should also be held to a higher standard.

Note that there are people much wiser than me (such as Andrew Gelman) who disagree with me; Gelman is dissatisfied with the current presumption that published research is correct. I certainly agree with this but for the same reasons that Mitchell gives, I don't think that merely publishing negative results can fix this issue.

Either way, I think you are being quite uncharitable to Mitchell.

Comment author: Vaniver 14 July 2014 12:47:38AM 18 points [-]

Either way, I think you are being quite uncharitable to Mitchell.

I disagree. Let's look at this section again:

Whether they mean to or not, authors and editors of failed replications are publicly impugning the scientific integrity of their colleagues. Targets of failed replications are justifiably upset, particularly given the inadequate basis for replicators’ extraordinary claims.

Contrast this to:

“This been difficult for me personally because it’s an area that’s important for my research,” he says. “But I choose the red pill. That’s what doing science is.”

From here, linked before on LW here.

The first view seems to have the implied assumption that false positives don't happen to good researchers, whereas the second view has the implied assumption that theories and people are separate, and people should follow the facts, rather than the other way around.

But perhaps it is the case that, in social psychology, the majority of false positives are not innocent, and thus when a researchers results do not replicate it is a sign that they're dishonest rather than that they're unlucky. In such a case, he is declaring that researchers should not try to expose dishonesty, which should bring down opprobrium from all decent people.

Comment author: Dan_Moore 14 July 2014 01:43:24PM 1 point [-]

The goal is to set up the experiments to make it solely about the results and not about colleagues. If 'scientific integrity' means sloppy, porous experimental setup, then impugning this is not a bad thing. Ideally the experimental design and execution should transcend the question of the researchers' motives.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit