Social Researchers wrote intentionally dumb papers to prove that academic journals will accept them

[Limbo Pete]

Again, being selected for publication =/= peer review.
There appears to be some confusion in here about that.
Editors select what they want to publish, which is then submitted to relevant experts for review.
Complaints about bias in the selection process may or may not have merit, but it is a different publication stage.
I can only speak from experience with regard to history, but it can't possibly be that different across the humanties. Editing/publishing is its own field with its own standards and practices.

 

[Greco_Wiz]

One thing that was surprising when I became a recruiter is just how awful most of the professors resumes are.
Their experience sucks and their skills suck too. They couldn't get a job in their profession because their skills and experience are far too weak, so their only option is to take a professor job....but yet are charging people crazy high prices for what they fail in.


Teaching advanced business and they have never even been in the private sector, teaching sw coding but they can't pass a basic technical phone screen and preaching to their students about high expectations in the private sector, but can't cut it themselves. It's disingenuous at best, and outright thievery at worst.

If I was going to college again I would look up each professor on LinkedIn and make sure they can actually back up what they teach.

Not interested in being evaluated by someone who decided they like school so much that they would never leave.

I can’t speak to other fields, but this just simply is not true in the sciences. Outside of maybe some adjunct position, becoming a professor in a scientific discipline at any respectable university is incredibly competitive. We’re talking 150-250 doctoral applicants per one spot. Far more competitive than alternative careers like industry or government.

 

[DIDM]

The dog humping being part of rape culture paper is hilarious

 

[trac209]

This is how sociology was created. Guy in human resources recently told me he had a degree in sociology.. I tried my best not to say what a crock of crap that is.

Want me to tell him,I’d be glad to.

 

[NoDak]

I know about that but that doesn't prove your point that psychology isn't science. First, notice that the problem is worse in certain subfields of psychology like social and cognitive psychology which is why I made a point to mention Skinner.

Second, the researchers themselves point out that some of the bad incentives that led to this are problems present throughout science.

Was I trying to prove it isn't? My definition is just exclusionary and I was mostly taking shots at gender studies ITT.

Anyway, it really often stumbles before we can even get to the point of reproducibility and if psychology consistently meets the criteria as far as application of the scientific method then why hasn't it been able to produce a coherent cumulative body of knowledge - the literal definition of science - with a clear conceptual core or framework? What are the foundational theories or unifying themes?

Like in chemistry for instance at the most basic of levels, there exists an elaborate foundational framework for analyzing chemical reactions with an arrangement of elements which are ordered by their atomic number, electron configuration, and recurring chemical properties. We can precisely measure features such as density, melting point, boiling point, atomic radius and electronegativity.

In addition to the aforementioned, SE is far more aggressive about it.

01. Materiality

The material basis of mind is the brain. Psychology studies the mind without the brain!

02. Specificity

The building blocks of brain are neurons. Only molecular neurobiology – which studies the physical and chemical processes involved in the communication between neurons – can be called the science of the brain.

03. Observation, Theory, and Prediction

Despite the “instruments” used in Wundt’s laboratory, there is no quantifiable observation in psychology; there are many opposing theories (see this as a recent example); and there are no predictions; even if there are, they are after the fact.

04. Historical Continuity

There is no continuity in the history of psychology. Just like sociology, it popped into existence in the 19th century, largely out of philosophy. The first school, structuralism, was opposed by another, psychoanalysis, both of which were opposed by the “imageless thought school” from which gestalt psychology evolved then came behaviorism, cognitivism, descriptive psychology, functionalism, existential psychology….

05. Mathematics

Although some psychologists tried to force mathematics into psychology (for a farcical account of the use of mathematics in psychology, see the last paragraph of this page), no natural requirement of its use exists as it does in physics, for instance.

06. Communication in Psychology

Every school of psychology has its own journal in which its own ideas are communicated. Each journal prints theories and conjectures which could be in complete opposition to theories and conjectures in other journals.

07. Prevalence of Controversy

There is an abundance of controversy among various schools of psychology.

08. Sensitivity to the Removal of Statistics

As in sociology, many “scientific” investigations in psychology rely heavily on statistics. If you remove statistics, no “science” will be left. Statistics is so important in psychology that a journal called psychometrika is devoted entirely to statistics.

09. Relation to Technology

There is not a single invention that is based on psychology. Here I want to emphasize the distinction between neuroscience and psychology. Neuroscience, the branch that studies the electrochemical responses of the brain to stimuli, is crucial to the development of drugs and treatments for mental illnesses.

10. It is “Too Complicated”

Many psychologists admit that human mind is “too complicated.” Therefore, all ideas are only partially right and wrong!

Is cancer biology not a real science

It's predominantly medical research, so partially.

 

[ocean size]

It's predominantly medical research, so partially.

A reproducibility crisis may or may not be evidence of something not being conducted scientifically.

All you really need to explain it is editors that favor picking positive results.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Was I trying to prove it isn't? My definition is just exclusionary and I was mostly taking shots at gender studies ITT.

Anyway, it really often stumbles before we can even get to the point of reproducibility and if psychology consistently meets the criteria as far as application of the scientific method then why hasn't it been able to produce a coherent cumulative body of knowledge - the literal definition of science - with a clear conceptual core or framework? What are the foundational theories or unifying themes?

Like in chemistry for instance at the most basic of levels, there exists an elaborate foundational framework for analyzing chemical reactions with an arrangement of elements which are ordered by their atomic number, electron configuration, and recurring chemical properties. We can precisely measure features such as density, melting point, boiling point, atomic radius and electronegativity.

In addition to the aforementioned, SE is far more aggressive about it.

01. Materiality

The material basis of mind is the brain. Psychology studies the mind without the brain!

02. Specificity

The building blocks of brain are neurons. Only molecular neurobiology – which studies the physical and chemical processes involved in the communication between neurons – can be called the science of the brain.

03. Observation, Theory, and Prediction

Despite the “instruments” used in Wundt’s laboratory, there is no quantifiable observation in psychology; there are many opposing theories (see this as a recent example); and there are no predictions; even if there are, they are after the fact.

04. Historical Continuity

There is no continuity in the history of psychology. Just like sociology, it popped into existence in the 19th century, largely out of philosophy. The first school, structuralism, was opposed by another, psychoanalysis, both of which were opposed by the “imageless thought school” from which gestalt psychology evolved then came behaviorism, cognitivism, descriptive psychology, functionalism, existential psychology….

05. Mathematics

Although some psychologists tried to force mathematics into psychology (for a farcical account of the use of mathematics in psychology, see the last paragraph of this page), no natural requirement of its use exists as it does in physics, for instance.

06. Communication in Psychology

Every school of psychology has its own journal in which its own ideas are communicated. Each journal prints theories and conjectures which could be in complete opposition to theories and conjectures in other journals.

07. Prevalence of Controversy

There is an abundance of controversy among various schools of psychology.

08. Sensitivity to the Removal of Statistics

As in sociology, many “scientific” investigations in psychology rely heavily on statistics. If you remove statistics, no “science” will be left. Statistics is so important in psychology that a journal called psychometrika is devoted entirely to statistics.

09. Relation to Technology

There is not a single invention that is based on psychology. Here I want to emphasize the distinction between neuroscience and psychology. Neuroscience, the branch that studies the electrochemical responses of the brain to stimuli, is crucial to the development of drugs and treatments for mental illnesses.

10. It is “Too Complicated”

Many psychologists admit that human mind is “too complicated.” Therefore, all ideas are only partially right and wrong!



It's predominantly medical research, so partially.

There is a body of knowledge though. Its not as coherent or extensive as what you see in some of the natural sciences but psychology is also younger than those fields. Behavior analysis had developed certain principles that have been tested and retested many times over for instance. I keep going back to that subfield because I think its the most empirical despite key limitations it has. Other subfields are more fuzzy and its because of them that I do get the apprehension about psychology as science but I think there absolutely work within the field that makes the cut off.

 

[NoDak]

There is a body of knowledge though. Its not as coherent or extensive as what you see in some of the natural sciences but psychology is also younger than those fields. Behavior analysis had developed certain principles that have been tested and retested many times over for instance. I keep going back to that subfield because I think its the most empirical despite key limitations it has. Other subfields are more fuzzy and its because of them that I do get the apprehension about psychology as science but I think there absolutely work within the field that makes the cut off.

Arguing any further would be just make me an asshole, because science or no science debate aside I do think it's a useful field and certainly one of the best considered to be among the humanities and social sciences. If you think I'm harsh, the Skeptical Educator (Sadri Hassani) quoted above considers physics, chemistry and molecular biology to be the only undisputed branches of science.

No cell biology? microbiology? really? He's on the far end of the spectrum though in mathematical physics and has wrote textbooks on it. The level of precision involved is almost absurd.

 

[Starman]

Don't be an idiot Kong

Too late.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Arguing any further would be just make me an asshole, because science or no science debate aside I do think it's a useful field and certainly one of the best considered to be among the humanities and social sciences. If you think I'm harsh, the Skeptical Educator (Sadri Hassani) quoted above considers physics, chemistry and molecular biology to be the only undisputed branches of science.

No cell biology? microbiology? really? He's on the far end of the spectrum though in mathematical physics and has wrote textbooks on it. The level of precision involved is almost absurd.

Like I said, I get the apprehension with psychology. I would even concede that you could categorize certain subfields within psychology as not-science given their specific targets of inquiry(like cognitive psychology). I just think that there's work done within the field that definitely qualifies as science.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Click on this to read a thread from people who have been dealing with this gender studies nuttiness for a while. I think that they actually featured the dog park one back when it got published.

 

[Ruprecht]

Was I trying to prove it isn't? My definition is just exclusionary and I was mostly taking shots at gender studies ITT.

Anyway, it really often stumbles before we can even get to the point of reproducibility and if psychology consistently meets the criteria as far as application of the scientific method then why hasn't it been able to produce a coherent cumulative body of knowledge - the literal definition of science - with a clear conceptual core or framework? What are the foundational theories or unifying themes?

Like in chemistry for instance at the most basic of levels, there exists an elaborate foundational framework for analyzing chemical reactions with an arrangement of elements which are ordered by their atomic number, electron configuration, and recurring chemical properties. We can precisely measure features such as density, melting point, boiling point, atomic radius and electronegativity.

In addition to the aforementioned, SE is far more aggressive about it.

01. Materiality

The material basis of mind is the brain. Psychology studies the mind without the brain!

02. Specificity

The building blocks of brain are neurons. Only molecular neurobiology – which studies the physical and chemical processes involved in the communication between neurons – can be called the science of the brain.

03. Observation, Theory, and Prediction

Despite the “instruments” used in Wundt’s laboratory, there is no quantifiable observation in psychology; there are many opposing theories (see this as a recent example); and there are no predictions; even if there are, they are after the fact.

04. Historical Continuity

There is no continuity in the history of psychology. Just like sociology, it popped into existence in the 19th century, largely out of philosophy. The first school, structuralism, was opposed by another, psychoanalysis, both of which were opposed by the “imageless thought school” from which gestalt psychology evolved then came behaviorism, cognitivism, descriptive psychology, functionalism, existential psychology….

05. Mathematics

Although some psychologists tried to force mathematics into psychology (for a farcical account of the use of mathematics in psychology, see the last paragraph of this page), no natural requirement of its use exists as it does in physics, for instance.

06. Communication in Psychology

Every school of psychology has its own journal in which its own ideas are communicated. Each journal prints theories and conjectures which could be in complete opposition to theories and conjectures in other journals.

07. Prevalence of Controversy

There is an abundance of controversy among various schools of psychology.

08. Sensitivity to the Removal of Statistics

As in sociology, many “scientific” investigations in psychology rely heavily on statistics. If you remove statistics, no “science” will be left. Statistics is so important in psychology that a journal called psychometrika is devoted entirely to statistics.

09. Relation to Technology

There is not a single invention that is based on psychology. Here I want to emphasize the distinction between neuroscience and psychology. Neuroscience, the branch that studies the electrochemical responses of the brain to stimuli, is crucial to the development of drugs and treatments for mental illnesses.

10. It is “Too Complicated”

Many psychologists admit that human mind is “too complicated.” Therefore, all ideas are only partially right and wrong!



It's predominantly medical research, so partially.

Points 3, 5 and 8 are largely contradictory or independently focused on different fields of psychology.
For instance Mathematical Psychology is all about quantifying stimulus and behaviour to enable modeling.
Of course this doesn't lead to the invention of devices, so much as the development of methods of education, marketing etc.
Obviously in that sense it's a social science, closer to economics than physics, but that doesn't mean it lacks for application of the scientific method.
Point 9 also seems to be a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise the truth by making a false distinction. The combination of psychology and neuroscience, known as cognitive neuroscience (aka psychiatry) is precisely what's involved in the development of psychotropic medication and treatment regimes.

 

[WTF2008]

Arguing any further would be just make me an asshole, because science or no science debate aside I do think it's a useful field and certainly one of the best considered to be among the humanities and social sciences. If you think I'm harsh, the Skeptical Educator (Sadri Hassani) quoted above considers physics, chemistry and molecular biology to be the only undisputed branches of science.

No cell biology? microbiology? really? He's on the far end of the spectrum though in mathematical physics and has wrote textbooks on it. The level of precision involved is almost absurd.

It's absolutely trash science with no basis in reality.
Math is pretty much the only undisputed science.
Everything else is theoretical science.

Make some shit up, if it doesn't work, make some different shit up.

 

[NoDak]

Make some shit up, if it doesn't work, make some different shit up.

Psychology does tend to hastily throw out ideas and "theories" to move onto the next - something bemoaned by Daniel Gilbert - which is part of the point about the lack of cumulative knowledge because it doesn't work like that in a field such as physics.

Newtonian Mechanics is as valid within approximation as it was 330 years ago and will be as valid as it is today another 330 years from now. The Second Law of Motion is utilized in every calculation which involves using force to cause movement, the Law of Universal Gravitation so accurate to observation and experiment under non-relativistic 'everyday' macroscopic conditions that it still works for space travel within our solar system, whether working out the trajectories and orbit of a spacecraft or sending a rocket to the moon.

The same goes for James Clerk Maxwell's equations that formed the foundation of classical electromagnetism and are still useful for almost every application of electrical engineering, communications technology and optics. The third equation in particular showing that you can create a changing electric field from a changing magnetic field and vice versa is the basis for almost all practical electric power regardless of energy source being used.

Do you see why I scoffed in the "Physics Created By Men" thread, @jrams? Although it was Michael Faraday who made the experimental discovery of electromagnetic induction, Maxwell gave it a mathematical underpinning and his greatest achievement was really in unifying electricity, magnetism and light as manifestations of the same fundamental force.

And this shit is 17th and 19th century physics, respectively. They were both "wrong". So yeah, there are good reasons to feel putting psychology in the same category as science is fucking crazy but people will naturally get defensive and want to stick up for their intellectual turf.

 

[NoDak]

A reproducibility crisis may or may not be evidence of something not being conducted scientifically.

All you really need to explain it is editors that favor picking positive results.

https://qz.com/603356/why-scientific-studies-cant-be-reproduced/amp/

There are some potential solutions to the irreproducibility of medical science, but they would require an extensive overhaul of the system. For observational studies, Young and Karr have proposed sensible measures, like making data publicly available, recording data analysis plans upfront, and splitting the data to be analyzed into test and validation sets.

For basic science, public money could be used to set up large testing facilities where experiments can be run by impartial technicians and all results, positive or negative, can be made available to the scientific community. If such changes were implemented, however, the number of published studies would plummet precipitously. Journals would go out of business and so would most scientists, unless new criteria were devised for doling out grant money and handing out promotions. Some areas of research would be invalidated if everyone had access to negative studies, and researchers would be discredited.

The biomedical research community isn’t ready for these kinds of painful changes. One piece of evidence for this is that nobody knows which 47 studies Amgen was unable to reproduce. To gain the cooperation of the principal investigators of those studies, Amgen was forced to sign non-disclosure agreements about the results of their inquiries. It seems that the authors of the “landmark” cancer studies knew that they would be found out, and unsurprisingly, setting the record straight wasn’t high on their list of priorities.

 

[ocean size]

A reproducibility crisis may or may not be evidence of something not being conducted scientifically.

All you really need to explain it is editors that favor picking positive results.

https://qz.com/603356/why-scientific-studies-cant-be-reproduced/amp/

There are some potential solutions to the irreproducibility of medical science, but they would require an extensive overhaul of the system. For observational studies, Young and Karr have proposed sensible measures, like making data publicly available, recording data analysis plans upfront, and splitting the data to be analyzed into test and validation sets.

For basic science, public money could be used to set up large testing facilities where experiments can be run by impartial technicians and all results, positive or negative, can be made available to the scientific community. If such changes were implemented, however, the number of published studies would plummet precipitously. Journals would go out of business and so would most scientists, unless new criteria were devised for doling out grant money and handing out promotions. Some areas of research would be invalidated if everyone had access to negative studies, and researchers would be discredited.

The biomedical research community isn’t ready for these kinds of painful changes. One piece of evidence for this is that nobody knows which 47 studies Amgen was unable to reproduce. To gain the cooperation of the principal investigators of those studies, Amgen was forced to sign non-disclosure agreements about the results of their inquiries. It seems that the authors of the “landmark” cancer studies knew that they would be found out, and unsurprisingly, setting the record straight wasn’t high on their list of priorities.

If anyone didn't catch what I was implying in my post, here's the gist: Scientists could all be good and honest, but lets say you have 20 studying if a drug works or not. The standard alpha value to test for a statistically significant relationship is about 0.05- in other words, a 5% chance to accept a false positive. So if 20 scientists all do the same experiment, odds are one might get a false positive, the other 19 get negative results.

However, journals don't like to publish negative results, they are usually considered uninteresting. The way statistical testing is done, a negative result could simply mean you didn't have enough of a sample size to detect a true positive.

So, the journal doesn't publish the 19 negative results and just the one positive result. Now the body of literature looks like this drug works 100% of the time, when it actually doesn't work at all and the study where it did was a fluke.

To fix that, it wouldn't have to be as major as an overhaul to fix the part that prevents articles from getting published due to negative results. You could have a second tier of journal that takes pre-registration- basically you write your intro and methods, power analysis etc. before you do the study and the journal agrees to publish the results either way.

Trials funded by pharma where they don't want the negative results to get out, that's another story.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

“Fat Bodybuilding”

<Lmaoo>

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Leftists consistently tout academic journals as gospel because...Well they're idiots. I've been trying to tell these guys for years that these academics studies are full of shit.

This is complete bullshit. It is well known in academia of journals that will publish anything.
Hence why which academic journal publish you is very important.

 

[Horse Style]

So these three scholars, James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose wrote 20 satirical papers under different pseudonyms and managed to get 7 of them published. They did this to show how much "grievance studies", as they call it, have taken over academia.

One of the trio’s hoax papers, published in April by the journal Fat Studies, claims bodybuilding is “fat-exclusionary” and proposes “a new classification . . . termed fat bodybuilding, as a fat-inclusive politicized performance.”

Affilia, a peer-reviewed journal of women and social work, formally accepted the trio’s hoax paper, “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism.” The second portion of the paper is a rewrite of a chapter from “Mein Kampf.”

All three scholars are liberals but they still see the problem that the "oppression olympics" is causing in the realm of higher education

Full Article: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...lars-managed-to-get-satirical-papers-pub.html

And here's a video of Ben Shapiro explaining what they did as he's falling over himself, laughing.

 

[Madmick]

Not the first time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair