Why most social science "studies" should simply be dismissed out of hand

By -
We can always data mine for correlations until we get one we like. So when a socialist does a "study" proving that capitalists are psychopathic, or a libertarian "demonstrates" that lax environmental regulation makes us healthier... just ignore them. (These things might be true, but you can figure the studies themselves are worthless.)

The only studies that one should pay any attention are one's where the study's author expected the opposite result, but reluctantly reports that the study contradicted his expectations. So when Roland Fryer set out to show bias in police shootings, but found none, that is worth paying attention to. Similarly, when Gregory Clark attempted to show that social mobility had increased in modern times, but found it hadn't, again, that is worth noting.

Comments

  1. Prateek4:02 AM

    What you propose sounds suspiciously similar to the genetic fallacy, such as when a former atheist becomes a Mormon or when a former Christian preacher becomes a communist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:08 AM

      All comments about something you say sounding "suspiciously similar" to some other idea should be dismissed out of hand.

      Delete
  2. Greg Pandatshang12:29 PM

    It'd be interesting to make a list of such findings. Another one that comes to mind is Robert Putnam's finding in Bowling Alone that diversity is bad for communities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Josiah Neeley1:09 PM

    It's not the genetic fallacy. In fact it follows from the argument John Ioannidis makes in Why Most Published Research Findings Are False:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more