Wha wha what?
So this piece from the ifeminists (otherwise known as feminists with common sense and not some radical agenda) explains how hard science research has come in to question.
A review of medical studies published from 1990 to 2003 in three prestigious journals -- the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Lancet -- has called the validity of approximately one-third of them into severe question.Hmm we can't trust hard science research that much because they're getting lazy or whatever else, so how about the soft sciences?
If a relatively 'hard' science (like medicine) has such difficulty with accuracy, then the results offered by the so-called 'soft' sciences (like sociology) should be approached with a high degree of skepticism. This is especially necessary since public policy and laws are often formed by such studies.THIS SHOULDN'T NEED TO BE TOLD. Sociology should be barely called a science. It is the biggest load of crap in the history of the world. Sociology looks at a particular situation, labels things a certain way and then explains outcomes after the fact. Plus, their understanding of human nature is so poor, it makes me sick. Here is another departing excerpt, where the author of the article states the obvious.
The soft sciences share all these research vulnerabilities. But, because they are less constrained by research controls, the most common answer there to what motives bias may well be "political belief."The foregoing statement will surprise few people. For example, 'feminist research' is notorious for arriving at feminist conclusions through research that includes clear political assumptions.
posted by Clupbert @ 10:26 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I think the thing that pisses me off most about sociologists is how they get millions of dollars in grants to come up with brilliant conclusions like "People who are born into poor families are more likely to stay poor." REALLY? Thank you, sociologists, for spending our tax dollars figuring out something everyone already knows.
Sociologists always seems to do studies that they are really passionate about. The study always then seems to not only validify their presumptions but maybe be a harsher reality than they even thought! I knew white people were racist, but this racist? OH MY, my study proves that white people are the most racist race in the world.
You wasted your own time by coming here and saying "wasted" implies that you had a choice to do something else during that time, which obviously by your own calculation, you don't. You wasted my time by not debating any points. This is the same "I don't know" argument which is hardly constructive(not to mention an obvious fallacy) and for the purposes of debate, is horribly ignorant.
I hate hippies and Communists just as much as the next guy. Funny thing, both descriptors tend to accurately portray Sociologists. :P
However, to their credit, the one thing I can appreciate about sociologists is their tendency, at the outset, to state their background, beliefs and biases before conducting research. It's a bit PoMo, but useful, as it enables you to get an understanding as to where they are coming from.
For example, if a Sociology researcher stated before hand that they were abused as a child before they wrote the rest of the study, I could respect that a bit more than someone who failed to include such a relevant issue.
Economics is often called the "Queen" of the social sciences because it uses formulas and logic. However, Economists get caught up in their interpretation of the data. They might get a statistically significant coefficent, but the coefficient is so small as to render the effect of the variable useless.
Also, Social scientists sometimes fail to cite the source of their funding. In gambling research, for example, many studies on the costs of addicted gamblers are funded by industry. Little wonder that the costs turn out to be smaller than in non-industry funded studies.
I think that many of these studies fail to recognize reverse causality. For example, it seems as though every year researchers change their opinions on tomatoes. One year they are bad for you, other years they are good for you. They find that people who eat tomatoes are less likely to have cancer, and this is attributed to the vitamin C. However, it could be that tomatoes are part of a wider dietary trend, and people who are less likely to get cancer may simply have a taste preference for tomatoes. Or, perhaps Non-smokers like tomatoes more than smokers. So, if you read a study that says "this is linked to that" it means jack shit.
I think a sociologist doesn't really need to state their beliefs beforehand because they already pretty much are when they say they're sociologist. Lot's of diversity of thought in that field, that's for sure...
It's a joke you dumbass. I am playing on the fact that sociologists are almost universally liberal. YOU ARE A DUMBASS WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND SHIT AND HAS NO IDEA HOW TO ARGUE. You just assume all of your little statements about reality are axioms and then use it as an excuse from ever having to explain yourself or argue or debate in anything resembling a logical fashion. You have no sense of humor either or the intelligence to pick up on it when it is being used. I hope you get hit by a truck.
Are you trying to say I wasn't joking? Maybe you should read it again and again until the sarcasm penetrates the piece of shit excuse you have for a brain.
John, I would like to know how you consider the following. This is just a mental exercise. Anybody else, feel free to chip in.
Say I am writing, as an economist, a report on GDP growth. I take the last ten years of GDP for country A and country B. I calculate the growth rates. Then I conclude that country A's GDP growth rate is higher.
How is this ideological?
How is this not objective?
Just curious as to how you would argue about this exercise.
One more thing: I have an answer for why I think that these results may not be objective, but it's a technical reason. I am wondering if you guys will come up with the same thing.
Econguy: I think that is a fairly objective calculation, but it's always nice to ask a few more questions. For example: who calculated the GDP figures for a country? Some African dictator might say his gdp per capita is 29,000 US dollars, but the World Bank says it's 2,900 US dollars.
Obviously one goes with the figures they put more faith in. So, we assume that the figures are the best we have.
So go ahead and perform the calculation. On average, we would infer that the people who had the higher growth rate are better off, materially.
But that's an assumption. The growth may have accrued to the top 1% of the population only, and the average person's income is the same. But relative to the rich, they are not as well off. According to the gdp per capita figures, they are.
Robustness and the detail of the analysis are what matters.
Ideology would come in when deciding where one stands in terms of the data. One ideology would say that all are better off whereas another would say that only a few are better off. There's no ideology in performing the calculations themselves, just in the interpretation of the results.
One intersting thing related to the ifeminists.com article is the relation of funding to the dominant research ideology. Researchers are subjected to groupthink in their results and when someone breaks new ground and challenges the status quo, they are met with funding withdrawals or ridicule from their peers.
For example, pointing out that there are almost 2 females for every male at a post secondary school is not a nice thing to do when females are trying to make inroads into engineering and math, the two areas they don't dominate in terms of numbers.
Pointing out that females and males have biological differences is also frowned upon. For example, even though more females graduate from university, they are a minority in most post-grad studies. Why is that? Are kids and marriage the reason? Some of the female grad students I have talked to have mentioned the choice between kids and a Ph.D. as if it were a mutually exclusive tradeoff.
Damnit, you revealed the answer before non-economists could respond.
Now let's pretend that this paper has, theoretically, flawless data. In that, the GDP measures are assumed to be perfect.
Aaron, the purpose of the hypothetical study was "Which country has higher GDP growth?". Period. Not who is better off, etc.
There is no standing in terms of the data in which ideology plays a part, in my opinion. The paper's conclusion is: country A's GDP growth is higher. It's a purely quantative exercise.
My question remains to the commentators, how would you think this study is ideological, and how is it not objective?
Further, would you consider a purely mathematical paper ideological or not objective? Not a stats paper, not a science paper, but a math paper. If you don't know the differences, look them up. Something having to to with graph theory or matrix algebra or whatever, but purely mathematical, involving no data sets, only mathematical axioms and assumptions (i.e.; number theory).
I think objectivity can be attained. It is defined as judging the situation without any emotion or personal prejudices. I think in some situations, and some people can definitely do it.
Econguy:
That would be like you having three pairs of sunglasses and me having two pairs of sunglasses.
You have more pairs of sunglasses than I.
Maybe not in PoMoLand though.
Aaron, that's the point. Objectivity can be reached in academic work. Esp with purely quantative work such as math, in some science (ie measuring molecular weight of compounds as a paper), etc.
Fuk'n PoMos.
Agree. At least we encounter them less and less as we enter the working world and move on with our lives. Except at Starbucks, I suppose. And at application line ups when assistant professorships open up in Philosophy/Political Science.
Post a Comment
<< Home