Only half of all social science can be replicated
The uncertainty of science: In a new study, researchers attempted to replicate and thus confirm the results of several hundred social science papers, and found that the results of only half could be replicated.
Researchers from a variety of universities looked at “164 quantitative papers published from 2009 to 2018 in 54 journals in the social and behavioural sciences,” according to the summary in the Nature article. The team “attempted replications of 274 claims of positive results” but found only about half could be replicated. The researchers found that many published findings did not consistently hold up when tested again, although the exact replication rate varied depending on how success was measured.
This result jives with other reports over the years that found most science research difficult if not impossible to replicate or confirm.
In fact, every study in the past two decades that attempted to replicate earlier work has consistently found that about half the papers published in the scientific literature in the soft sciences (psychology, social sciences, biology, medicine, pharmaceuticals) could not be confirmed.
In other words, a very very large percentage of science research is junk and should be ignored. In fact, no study or research result should be given any credence until someone else has been able to duplicate the results independently. We should especially pay no attention to declarations by any government health officials, as such declarations are routinely completely divorced from any research at all.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
This is true throughout academia. Thi irrepreducabilty crisis
Honestly, I’m surprised it’s as high as 50%. I had previously heard it was more like 80% could not be reproduced. I guess the magic is all in that phrase “although the exact replication rate varied depending on how success was measured.”
Related: What is the core of bias? Self-interest?
JENNIFER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP TODAY
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/jennifer-aniston
“To my point, and this is not any kind of indictment of young women or young men per se but just a recognition of the apparent facts about human nature and the flow of generational wealth, self-interest, bias and politics. It makes perfect sense.”
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e691e8_01f47af648d04a3a956c142532b16e6e~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_740,h_1110,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/e691e8_01f47af648d04a3a956c142532b16e6e~mv2.jpg
Mr Eastman said
Successfully reproduce for SOME values of success, likely very small values. Also are they free of observer bias. If both the original experimenter and the reproducing author have the same biases and same knowledge of the desired result is it a valid experiment to start with. It is extraordinarily hard to get valid results in the social sciences due to the observer being part of the process. It is akin (at a VERY highly analogous level) to the issues placed on measurements at the atomic scale affected by indeterminacy. Also issues of ethics generally don’t apply if what you’re damaging or destroying are mere electrons.
Social Studies should only be electives
They try to invade every other curriculum
Whatever it is, I expect it is far more reproducible than anything out of climate science, though Fauci and the CDC gave them a good run for their money during COVID. One of the important tells is active government-led suppression of alternate conclusions. Cheers –
It’s a house of cards. Published results become the starting point for subsequent studies. When you start out wrong ….
Publish or parish as they say in academia.
So in order to get published you need data backing your assumptions up. So they do “studies” until they get the results they want.
Then they self publish.
Related: This may have something to do with the situation:
CRUSHING THE REPARATIONS ARGUMENT
“Should we blame the current Democrat party members for slavery and demand they pay reparations for the deeds of past Democrats who established slavery and fought for slavery to remain in America? No.
But there are plenty of other more contemporary offences to civilization and the country that the Democrats (And the RINO’s) should currently be blamed for.”
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/crushing-the-reparations-argument
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e691e8_6780ca437c144a9ea0e3ced265b8fd38~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_740,h_592,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/e691e8_6780ca437c144a9ea0e3ced265b8fd38~mv2.png