Arguably, the most damaging finding for social psychology was the finding that only 25% of published results could be replicated in a direct attempt to reproduce original findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). With such a low base-rate of successful replications, all published results in social psychology journals are likely to fail to replicate. The rational response to this discovery is to not trust anything that is published in social psychology journals unless there is evidence that a finding is replicable. Based on this logic, the discovery of fraud in a study published in 2012 is of little significance. Even without fraud, many findings are questionable.
Conclusion
The discovery of a fraudulent dataset in a study on dishonesty has raised new questions about the credibility of social psychology. Meanwhile, the much bigger problem of selection for significance is neglected. Rather than treating studies as credible unless they are retracted, it is time to distrust studies unless there is evidence to trust them. Z-curve provides one way to assure readers that findings can be trusted by keeping the false discovery risk at a reasonably low level, say below 5%. Applying this methods to Ariely’s most cited articles showed that nearly half of Ariely’s published results can be discarded because they entail a high false positive risk. This is also true for many other findings in social psychology, but social psychologists try to pretend that the use of questionable practices was harmless and can be ignored. Instead, undergraduate students, readers of popular psychology books, and policy makers may be better off by ignoring social psychology until social psychologists report all of their results honestly and subject their theories to real empirical tests that may fail. That is, if social psychology wants to be a science, social psychologists have to act like scientists.
This is relevant to the whole field of "trans" medicine. At best, it has no basis in any good psychological studies. All studies are done on the assumption that being "trans" isn't a delusion state but that assumption has no basis in science.
ReplyDeleteI know there is an ongoing debate here about the views of the Hareidi world vs those of the MO/RZ world. Allow me to summarize how I understand these differences.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Hareidi being a relatively new position - it may be a reaction to the changes of the last 250 years - the emancipation, reform, secularism, open society, heresy , mass defection from orthodoxy etc. Zionism is perhaps too big subject on its own, but that is also one aspect of hareidi opposition.
In order to to defend against these multiple attacks on Judaism, which have casued many to leave orthodoxy, all the way to intermarriage, Rabbonim have tried to close the gates to outside society - that means professionally, culturally, academically, philosophically etc. The Modernists have existed for several generations, include in Germany - Berlin and frankfurt), and have even come out of Volzhin to small degree. They thought that philosophy, culture, science could be integrated into Torah lifestyle. The culture of 150 years ago in germany is not exactly what was in post war America or europe. the Modern O of psot WW2 felt tehy could integrate a University with a Yeshiva, and also read modern philosophy, see movies, etc. Music was no longer classical, but rock n roll. But within MO they also believed that halacha could solve modern problems. To a great extent, so did the Hareidim - so the greatest poskim , like the CI would work on solving agricultural problems for botht he religious and secular farmers.
The MO , both in Israel and USA say they have been isolated by the Hareidim - and say that not only recently have rabbis Rackman and Goren been isolated, but also Rav Soloveitchik , and rav Kook. To a certain extent it is true - for example, Rav cardozo was teaching in a hareidi yeshiva for many years and was one of their star lecturers - but he was caught citing Rav Soloveitchik's philosophy , and then expelled. The Rosh Yeshiva does now mention R' Soloveitchik, but int he 80s, it was not the done thing.
Within the MO there are peopel on the right who hold a Hareidi + university world view, and they attack their own left wing. In the Hareidi world, they have a double problem - both a left wing, which is where the Herems are being placed, eg Itri Rabbis.; they also have a right wing extreme, where all sorts of sabbatean movements keep coming out - Rav Shach was fighting wars on different fronts - his fight against lubatich ws nothing to do with MO or Zionism.
The numerous sex cults that keep creeping out of yeshivas, including DL yeshivos, is disgraceful. But since Rav Shach's passing, most of the wars have been internal, whether inside Ponovezh, or inside the Moetzes gedolei hatorah.