Reform, you say? But wait! What will we do without all the Sokal hoaxes. The righteous defenses of the current state of the discipline were always the best part of the hoaxes, of course.
Focusing on media. Wow. They should try that in biology too. No Darwinism. Just facts.
Gabriel encourages us to see psychology as a mythology and, of course, he is right: “Sigmund Freud’s theories were largely unfalsifiable, and the promissory note that the mind is the brain has yet to be cashed in.” The idea that the mind is just the brain is unfalsifiable too. Beliefs that do not originate in fact are impervious to evidence.
A Cornell U psych prof warns against letting the career lardbellies know in so many words that you plan to shake things up a bit.
Did Darwin make it intellectually fulfilling to be an egotist?
The problem with naturalizing wisdom is that wisdom isn’t natural. It necessarily comes from a perspective beyond our own troubles in our own time.
Douglas Murray: Peterson watchers will also notice that he signed off by saying that “With God’s grace and mercy” he hoped to complete some of the tasks which he lays out in it.
Egnor: if Blackmore is not the same person now that she was a moment ago, then it makes no sense to call the YouTube video above an interview with Susan Blackmore. Perhaps it should be called interviews with Susan Blackmores or interviews with countless women, one of whom was Susan Blackmore. Or interviews with women formerly known as Susan Blackmore…
ScienceDaily: Chester and Lasko investigated 348 psychological manipulations included in peer-reviewed studies. They found that roughly 42% of the experiments were paired with no validity evidence, and that the remaining psychological manipulations were validated in ways that were extremely limited.
Like so many social science lecture room myths, it might be too good not to be true. Except it maybe isn’t. Anyway.
The rap? Among other things, “the implausibility of the results presented, many of which show effect sizes virtually unknown in medical science.”
We ask on account of this paper on how to talk to people who think that climate change isn’t as bad as many are making out. Rob Sheldon wonders why a science faculty is so much more concerned with psychology than facts.
In other words, even if social scientists can replicate research results, there may be little agreement about what, if anything, they mean. Is it a good idea for governments to consult them on social policy?
We love it. “Correction mechanisms in science can sometimes work slowly… ” Why does that remind us of “Nature has retracted a major oceans warning paper, after ten months of mass freakouts? The suspicion raised—and it is not unreasonable—is that the harm that wrong information does is useful to some parties. It’s almost like we sense the retraction coming conveniently after the damage is done.
No, it’s not. Now, what about psychology in its present state?