d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Replication Crisis > In Psychology
1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Mar 5 2016 01:05am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Anyone have any thoughts? I'll start:

Forty years ago Feynman discussed something at least similar to this:
Quote (Feynman)
Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell. I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this—I don’t remember it in detail, but it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do, A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person—to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A—and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1935 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Mar 5 2016 07:29pm
what do you need to repeat experiments nowadays?
we have the internet and all those intelligent people contributing :P

but seriously
any reputable journal should insist that it is clearly stated within each published paper
if the result is from a single study or has been replicated
a laissez-faire approach to scientific reporting is not only counter-productive but dangerous
Member
Posts: 36,389
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Gold: 3,192.00
Mar 6 2016 01:24pm
I think really depends on the quality of the original experiment and the cost of trying to reproduce it. If the first experiment was very thorough and would cost millions to do again, I would probably just accept it as true and move on.

However, here we are talking about rats, so I'm guessing it's just a couple weeks of time and a few hundred bucks, so I think recreating the original experiment to verify the rats will behave the same is important.
Member
Posts: 14,386
Joined: Dec 12 2015
Gold: 307.59
Mar 6 2016 04:46pm
Psychology was until a few years ago, the dumbest science ever made. Talking as a psychologist
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Mar 6 2016 05:55pm
Well the modern "replication crisis" (as I understand it, and psychology is not a strong suit of mine) seems to be that a group is trying to reproduce findings and is having difficulty.
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Mar 6 2016 07:06pm
Some experiments produce results (data) that can be interpreted in many differents ways. Is it always wrong - no, is it always right - no. All Scientific results [things like Math and Chemistry - results are pretty indisputable] are not carved in stone and is ever expanding, constantly changing and merely a current representation of perspective. It is only people's opinion that is ornery, obstinate and unyielding.
Member
Posts: 25,139
Joined: Dec 20 2006
Gold: 82,014.68
Warn: 10%
Mar 7 2016 12:44am
Quote (LordSinfriends @ Mar 6 2016 02:46pm)
Psychology was until a few years ago, the dumbest science ever made. Talking as a psychologist


B)
Member
Posts: 15,960
Joined: Nov 29 2008
Gold: 40.64
Mar 7 2016 04:51am
*shugs* Psychology is not an exact science. Cognitive behavioral therapy or the placebo effect are not easily testable mediums (just to give two examples), but they nevertheless can produce significant results.
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Mar 7 2016 06:40am
Quote (NatureNames @ 7 Mar 2016 10:51)
*shugs* Psychology is not an exact science. Cognitive behavioral therapy or the placebo effect are not easily testable mediums (just to give two examples), but they nevertheless can produce significant results.


during my time at university pyschology was offered both within the framework of natural sciences and humanities (not sure if it is still the same, since the bologna process might have changed that after i emigrated from europe)
from the psychologists (i had contact with during that time) those in the natural sciences branch adhered to very strict principles and performed their research with the same tenacity as common in natural sciences, while the ones from the humanities quite often used simple statistics based on not to many samples to back their ideas
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Mar 7 2016 10:31am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychology is the study of behavior and mind. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.[3][4] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist.

Psychology has been described as a "hub science", with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, humanities, and philosophy.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll