+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

  1. Link to Post #1
    Australia Avalon Member
    Join Date
    18th May 2019
    Location
    Portland, Victoria
    Age
    49
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 244 times in 32 posts

    Lightbulb The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    There has been a major crisis unfolding in psychology and the social sciences which is now spreading far and wide through all fields of study. The crisis is based on the replication of research findings and it's recent incarnation arose out of a single published paper in social psychology. The crisis is well outlined in the following Radiolab episode. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/stereothreat & here : https://www.theguardian.com/science/...crisis-podcast & here : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00013p9.

    You can find more information here :
    The real issue at stake here is that phenomena in a wide range of disciplines, that people have previously taken to be real and/or true, may now turn out to be nothing more than a fiction.

    I myself am curious as a former marine biologist to see what happens to the field of theoretical and experiential physics and to see if such testable ideas as Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics will come undone.

    So much of our modern world is based on testable ideas. What does it mean for research in any field when what we took to be legitimate may soon be seen to be a farce? So much is under threat from Medicine to Sociology, Economics, Psychology, to Mathematics, to Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Consciousness Studies, NDE Studies,UFOlogy Studies and a host of other disciplines.

    At the core of the issue is three main ideas :
    - What can we test and how can we test it?
    - What if people cheat and fudge their information?
    - What do researchers do with data that doesn't fit their working hypothesis or sits outside of what they had expected/hoped to see?

    What will this crisis mean for the 21st century and beyond?

    Cheerio,
    Robert.
    Last edited by Robert deTree; 8th June 2019 at 01:59.

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Robert deTree For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (7th June 2019), AutumnW (7th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), Chris Gilbert (7th June 2019), Constance (7th June 2019), Mike (7th June 2019), Mike Gorman (8th June 2019), panpravda (8th June 2019), Patient (7th June 2019), peterpam (7th June 2019), Sadieblue (8th June 2019), Satori (7th June 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member peterpam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    14,976
    Thanked 8,639 times in 1,565 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Personally, I am very, very skeptical of any alleged research these days. How can we have any unbiased scientific research when it is bought and paid for by those that have a vested interest in a specific outcome?

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to peterpam For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (7th June 2019), AutumnW (7th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), conk (7th June 2019), Constance (7th June 2019), Inaiá (8th June 2019), Patient (7th June 2019), Robert deTree (8th June 2019), Sadieblue (8th June 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    1,525
    Thanked 2,167 times in 346 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Things are not so complicated as they at first appear.
    Lets first start with some possibly already agreed upon definitions.

    Religion - blind acceptance of some doctrine. Note this can also mean acceptance of any scientific theory as the truth. Bottom line, the person accepting, rejects anything that disagrees, regardless of "facts"

    Science - constant and systematic re-examination of assumptions by constructing or replicating experiments. Never concluding on any one theory. Continuous construction or modification of models to explain observed data. Note that belief is meaningless.

    So clearly both of these are being practiced by humans or perhaps other animals. Neither is the truth obviously as nature or the universe is remarkably grandiose and mostly unobserved.
    I personally see religion as the easy way out. One sticks to one's guns and hums "la la la la" if anyone says anything they don't wish to hear and mostly stays with those who already mostly agree with them (see various churches and groups - this includes institutions)

    Real science then is constant work. It never ends, never stops and never concludes. This leaves most people frustrated since they have a limited lifespan and want to know the "truth" so that they can feel good about following whatever it is and teach their children accordingly.

    Would you (all reading) agree that this is exactly what seems to be happening?

    I have personally adopted a view which basically allows for an open mind, dismissing only things temporarily if they seem to be easily shown to be "false". Generally, if I trust the person, their views are more heavily weighted, but NEVER believed. I hold this for myself as well. I know from experience that most if not all of my views degenerate throughout my life and get replaced with other views. Obviously this is not "correct" but seems to work for the most part.

    Back to research replication.
    Non trivial research is extraordinarily hard to reproduce. For one, it costs an awful lot of money and resources both in people and in time. Some research can never be reproduced because either the data was shown to be corrupt or simply non-existent.

    Having said that, one can look at computer chip production. As evidenced by continuous advancement of technology, people do have incentive to replicate other people's research and do one better. The result is easily seen in one's ability to buy gadgets that get more and more cool (not talking about their detrimental effects on biological systems).

    Research on more complex systems, such as biological systems is even more difficult and potentially hazardous or even unethical.
    Take cloning for example. Clearly it is doable, but what country or group even allows this completely. No, not even China.
    Research in cloning thus must remain in the underground and thus becomes easily weaponizable.
    This kind of research can lead to forms of breakaway civilizations, because those conducting it and uncovering amazing things can never openly share their findings without being ...well.. killed.

    So, research will NEVER stop, but the average person most likely will NEVER have full access to the real data, especially if the research is potentially disruptive to either established society or businesses.

    This is why sometimes global wars are the only way to "introduce" disruptive technology since pretty much everything is already disrupted.

    In BABYLON 5, the whole theme is basically between the Vorlons (energy beings promoting order) and the Spiders (promoting conflict), clearly diametrically opposed yet unable to eliminate each other and instead always meddling with other life forms to take sides. A naive wisdom is the Good vs Evil.

    In conclusion, while it appears I contradicted myself saying things are not as complicated as they appear, well... given that one can now see that the search for truth can never be black and white, I think perhaps I succeeded.

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), Bubu (7th June 2019), Franny (7th June 2019), panpravda (8th June 2019), Patient (7th June 2019), peterpam (8th June 2019), Robert deTree (8th June 2019), Satori (7th June 2019)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,473
    Thanks
    4,148
    Thanked 9,047 times in 2,142 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Quote Posted by Intranuclear (here)
    Things are not so complicated as they at first appear.
    Lets first start with some possibly already agreed upon definitions.

    Religion - blind acceptance of some doctrine. Note this can also mean acceptance of any scientific theory as the truth. Bottom line, the person accepting, rejects anything

    The Psychology plague is due to the fact that most brain are trained to believe by faith [religion]. Even on this forum where people like to believe to be aware, most will still prefer publish material over personal experience. Its a habit and its a big problem.
    Last edited by Constance; 7th June 2019 at 19:14. Reason: fixed quote formatting

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bubu For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), Intranuclear (7th June 2019), panpravda (8th June 2019), Patient (7th June 2019), Robert deTree (8th June 2019)

  9. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    1,525
    Thanked 2,167 times in 346 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Quote Posted by Intranuclear (here)
    Things are not so complicated as they at first appear.
    Lets first start with some possibly already agreed upon definitions.

    Religion - blind acceptance of some doctrine. Note this can also mean acceptance of any scientific theory as the truth. Bottom line, the person accepting, rejects anything

    Quote Posted by Bubu (here)
    The Psychology plague is due to the fact that most brain are trained to believe by faith [religion]. Even on this forum where people like to believe to be aware, most will still prefer publish material over personal experience. Its a habit and its a big problem.
    This is also true for computers. One can say that computers are the most "open minded" "creatures", meaning any piece of software will alter its behavior. However, a "trained" neural network, by definition is biased and can only "see" things it is trained for, yet it also exists in a computer. With that analogy, humans (neural networks) exist in nature (a giant computer) and are for the most part biased. This is not necessarily a problem, but becomes problematic if new data or events lead to the collapse of those networks.

    For example, the sun exploding generally will wipe out all the people of earth, regardless of their beliefs. You can substitute the sun with other things like a giant comet, massive nuclear or biological wars, galactic waves, Nibiru and such, well, you get the idea.
    So problem solved, right?

    So now, some people decide to do research in controlling suns and lets say they succeed. I guess maybe they blew up a few suns to test and perfect their tech. These people are for all practical purposes, gods. Of course, it is not that they are wiser in all aspects, but unquestionably crazy powerful.

    Bottom line, most people of earth cannot have the opportunity to become gods either because they will not be allowed to or because they are not capable or both. Gods don't like other gods for obvious reasons, as no one likes their experiments or their control tampered with. So gods fight or agree to stay out of each others' ways. Others don't have a say in it.

    If one believes that one is already a part of the ultimate god (the thing ruling all possible existences) well, then it is not a problem because everything is acceptable since everything is a part of God or a creation of God.
    The problems are created when some decide that there is no God or not yet, and they need to create it or believe that this god needs their help somehow, perhaps needs some money or getting other people killed.
    Well, if you believe in God, then this is also acceptable since it is part of the design, but if you don't, then there is no God, and you need to become one by controlling others and things.
    Either way, a godless universe seems to generate an ultimate God. But if it does not, then by definition the universe is God, so again there must be God.

    Look, it does not ultimately matter what anyone believes, because most beliefs will kill themselves and those around off, but if they don't, existence and novelty continue, in which case there is no ultimate truth.

    Going back to the issue at hand, research is limited to resources at hand and it is mostly used to further some corporation's bottom line one way or another. If the research is replicable, everyone benefits, if not, well the moneys and time are wasted and the promoters of the research are discredited.
    Do you (by "you" I mean anyone reading) think anyone really wants this?
    Most of the time, research that is not replicable is due to a corrupt or stressed researcher, taking short cuts to keep their position or livelihood. However, sometimes the research becomes classified because it is too successful and too disruptive. Then some people and the research disappear or are falsely discredited.
    I personally can either try to reproduce the research or choose to move on.
    Whatever the outcome, virtually everything is connected, so ultimately things go back and people try to replicate in a different way at a different time, when there are better tools and better data.

    Things take time. Beliefs come and go. Universes are created and destroyed/recycled.
    Would you have it any other way?
    The alternative is non-existence or one that is forever static.
    Last edited by Constance; 7th June 2019 at 19:17. Reason: fixed quote formatting

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), peterpam (8th June 2019), Robert deTree (8th June 2019)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    2,138
    Thanks
    3,812
    Thanked 8,513 times in 1,878 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    In addition to human bias, fudging data, and eliminating data that doesn't conform to pre-existing theories, there could be a bit of high strangeness going on as well. We understand the phenomena of the act of observation affecting photons but so far, that same theory has not been considered when it comes to molecular science. But I wonder if there is a subtle affect on all sorts of experimentation and life itself. This could account for what we call the placebo affect, generally brushed off with mundane explanations. But really what might be going on there and could the placebo affect have far reaching implication for a range of experiments?

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    BMJ (9th June 2019), Intranuclear (7th June 2019), Patient (7th June 2019), peterpam (8th June 2019), Robert deTree (8th June 2019)

  13. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    1,525
    Thanked 2,167 times in 346 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Yes AutumnW, this is why no single experiment is ever conclusive and invites others to replicate it in different ways to eliminate more variables or even change the outcome.

    As far as quantum mechanics being applied to molecular science, see the:https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv...y-462c39db8e7b

    The placebo effect is the most important thing and is always foremost in all medicine research. There is always the control group which is told that they are given the medicine when actually it is a placebo, and most of the time, most medicines do worse than the control group. In cases where actual medicines work, they are slightly better than the control group. In such cases, the people who were given the medicine but who believe that they were not, may in fact not benefit from the medicine. This is why belief is considered as sometimes more important than truth, because regardless of the belief, the believer can achieve things that are not easily understood.

    This could be viewed as every person being a sort of god where their own beliefs change the outcomes of things.

    Ingo Swan's own experiments have demonstrated this, see https://rviewer.com/Remote_Viewing_B...his-own-words/

    Bottom line, no experiment can be free of entanglement with other things, hence believing it blindly is silly and invites abuse or misunderstanding.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    BMJ (9th June 2019), janus (12th June 2019), peterpam (8th June 2019), Robert deTree (8th June 2019), silvanelf (12th June 2019)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Australia Avalon Member
    Join Date
    18th May 2019
    Location
    Portland, Victoria
    Age
    49
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 244 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Personally, I am very, very skeptical of any alleged research these days. How can we have any unbiased scientific research when it is bought and paid for by those that have a vested interest in a specific outcome?
    Peterpam I think this hits at the crux of so many problems regarding research in so many endevours from Climate Science to Social Science and Physics etc. It has always been an all pervasive issue because of the greed of the human mind and because every researcher wants to keep their job!

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Robert deTree For This Post:

    BMJ (9th June 2019), peterpam (8th June 2019)

  17. Link to Post #9
    UK Avalon Member Mike Gorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    1,037
    Thanks
    2,454
    Thanked 4,706 times in 919 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Well, this is interesting. I have been a voyager on the vast ocean of questions that is 'true science'.
    I think what happened was that Science has been misunderstood by the 'lay community' for many decades.
    The Scientific Method never allows for dogmatic, and absolute proclamations, it always reserves elements of doubt, and of 'researching'

    Re-Search, in fact characterizes what Science (Scientia) is about. The Dogma, and confident presentation of 'Facts' is really not what science is about!
    Rupert Sheldrake got himself into a pile of trouble when he presented his "TED Talk" a few years back.
    Have you seen this lecture from Rupert?


    You might know that Rupert Sheldrake is a bona fide scientist, he is the real deal, his unassuming and modest approach sometimes works against him.
    Perhaps you have heard of Arthur Young, the man who solved the Helicopter problem, he actually gave us the means to make Helicopters 'work'?
    Arthur Young was a man who followed the scientific method rigorously, he was a model builder and a tester of hypothesis - which is what science is actually about, testing, reviewing results and testing again.


    Arthur Young's Reflexive Universe will be revisited one day, and his name shall be emblazoned across the sky, because he gave us the truth.
    I am gob smacked with how these two men have been treated by the scientific establishment.
    This leads me to the real point of relevance, in your post: Science as it is presented today has lost all credibility.
    The true person of Science is a continual asker of questions, not a proclaimer of 'Facts'.
    The World Wide Web is our global publishing house. If you seek to publish and develop your reach: https://www.webstruct.xyz

  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Mike Gorman For This Post:

    BMJ (9th June 2019), Constance (8th June 2019), Hervé (8th June 2019), Inaiá (8th June 2019), Jayke (8th June 2019), Robert deTree (9th June 2019), silvanelf (12th June 2019)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    1,236
    Thanked 308 times in 98 posts

    Default Re: The Replication Crisis Beginning With False Positive Psychology

    Quote Posted by Mike Gorman (here)
    Re-Search, in fact characterizes what Science (Scientia) is about. The Dogma, and confident presentation of 'Facts' is really not what science is about!
    Rupert Sheldrake got himself into a pile of trouble when he presented his "TED Talk" a few years back.
    Have you seen this lecture from Rupert?
    Here is a link:

    Rupert Sheldrake on The Science Delusion at TED Talk (Full Transcript)

    Unfortunately, Sheldrake's argument regarding the speed of light is pretty weak. He accuses the physicists of dogmatic behavior, while he tries to lecture them about the appropriate methods in their own field. The pot is calling the kettle black.

    Another comment on the web:

    Quote The hostility if there was any wasn't for the challenge Sheldrake raised. If they were hostile they would have been so for the similar reasons a geologist might be hostile to a creationist declaring the Earth is a few thousand years old.
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...constant.1295/

    Quote Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion – Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel

    TED banned this talk… and the details of why are attached. It seems that fundamentalism has won again, and that the loudest voices in the world are from the minority – lowest common denominator – as they are in business teams.

    -- snip --

    Accusation 2:
    “He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example.… Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.”

    TED’s Scientific Board refers to a Scientific American article that makes my point very clearly: “Physicists routinely assume that quantities such as the speed of light are constant.”

    -- snip --
    https://innerwealth.com/2015/10/12/b...x-whitechapel/

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Robert deTree (15th June 2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts