I don't quite see what's wrong with the opinion that all of social science research doesn't amount to much of anything. As this shows, for most studies whether they find an effect or not depends more on the researcher than it does on the actual data.
You say, "Resist Science Nihilism!" but why? Because research ineffectiveness isn't necessarily caused by scientists favoring their own preconceived notions? That doesn't really line up at all now does it. Scientists don't have to be biased in favor of their preconceived notions for their research to be ineffective. That's just one possible cause.
Very interesting Matt. I feel like the kind of methodological scrambling that's increasingly required is only necessary when progress isn't going very well. Like if science is going well, it seems quite easy. But when it's not going well, everyone becomes a "methodologist." If effects are this hard to find, are they even effects?
I don't quite see what's wrong with the opinion that all of social science research doesn't amount to much of anything. As this shows, for most studies whether they find an effect or not depends more on the researcher than it does on the actual data.
You say, "Resist Science Nihilism!" but why? Because research ineffectiveness isn't necessarily caused by scientists favoring their own preconceived notions? That doesn't really line up at all now does it. Scientists don't have to be biased in favor of their preconceived notions for their research to be ineffective. That's just one possible cause.
Very interesting Matt. I feel like the kind of methodological scrambling that's increasingly required is only necessary when progress isn't going very well. Like if science is going well, it seems quite easy. But when it's not going well, everyone becomes a "methodologist." If effects are this hard to find, are they even effects?