On Peer Reviewed Science

[svart-hvitt]

Taking a step back again; what is science and what are the ways of science?

Take a look at this abstract by Danish Oxford professor Bent Flyvbjerg:

«Making Social Science Matter
Georgios Papanagnou, ed., Social Science and Policy Challenges: Democracy, Values, and Capacities, Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 25-56
33 PagesPosted: 13 Jun 2013


Bent Flyvbjerg
University of Oxford - Said Business School
Date Written: October 1, 2012

Abstract
If we want to empower and re-enchant social scientific research, we need to do three things. First, we must drop all pretence, however indirect, at emulating the success of the natural sciences in producing cumulative and predictive theory, for their approach simply does not work in any of the social sciences. (For the full argument see Flyvbjerg, 2001.) Second, we must address problems that matter to groups in the local, national and global communities in which we live, and we must do it in ways that matter; we must focus on issues of context, values and power, as advocated by great social scientists from Aristotle and Machiavelli to Max Weber and Pierre Bourdieu. Finally, we must effectively and dialogically communicate the results of our research to our fellow citizens, the ‘public’, and carefully listen to their feedback. If we do this – focus on specific values and interests in the context of particular power relations – we may successfully transform social scientific research into an activity performed in public for publics, sometimes to clarify, sometimes to intervene, sometimes to generate new perspectives, and always to serve as eyes and ears in ongoing efforts to understand the present and to deliberate about the future. We may, in short, arrive at social research that matters».

The point of the author is of utmost importance: An activity may cease to be scientific if it emulates the just steals the clothes of another science. Case in point: If social sciences just copy terms, definitions, calculus, language and other «clothes» from the natural sciences, the social sciences cease to be of practical relevance - and is therefore not science.

So when you experience that real social science differs from the natural sciences, it is not an indication that real social science is fake science. On the contrary, it may be social science that emulates and uses the tools from the natural sciences that is fake science.

I believe this crucial point is the source of much confusion and skepticism towards science among many people.

And I believe many on ASR have been blind to this point as well.

 

[SIY]

I would say that if politicians misrepresent science or fail to give the scientists the amounts of tax payers' money they desire, this is a problem for politics, society and scientists to deal with, and should not be tackled by changing the science itself.

I've done the grant game and I've done the private funding game. I will not do grants again, the levels of dishonesty involved were nauseating to me.

 

[Cosmik]

An activity may cease to be scientific if it emulates the just steals the clothes of another science. Case in point: If social sciences just copy terms, definitions, calculus, language and other «clothes» from the natural sciences, the social sciences cease to be of practical relevance - and is therefore not science.

So when you experience that real social science differs from the natural sciences, it is not an indication that real social science is fake science. On the contrary, it may be social science that emulates and uses the tools from the natural sciences that is fake science.

I believe this crucial point is the source of much confusion and skepticism towards science among many people.

And I believe many on ASR have been blind to this point as well.

But at first glance, it looks like an attempt to deviate from the established 'rules' of science and yet to cling onto the name 'science'. Why not ditch the 'science' moniker and change it to 'Social Policy Research' or something? Wouldn't this then free them from the shackles of scientific objectivity, etc. and allow them to do what they obviously really want to do: help people with politics?

 

[Wombat]

I've done the grant game and I've done the private funding game. I will not do grants again, the levels of dishonesty involved were nauseating to me.

Pharma: Don't privately fund cures when lifetime sales for ailment relief is more profitable. Don't fund research into 3rd world ailments when the populations can't afford the medicines. Don't fund research into unprofitable low occurrence afflictions. Unless their lobbying for GOVERNMENT FUNDING is successful.

Governments, and the occasional philanthropist, are needed for the humanitarian response.

The ethics of the profit-motive are not beyond reproach in the bigger picture.

 

[astr0b0y]

I’m really enjoying this thread, especially the fact that it has pretty much stayed on track for 5 pages now! I’m retraining, in my 40’s, to be a "scientist" having begun a BSc (biotech and enviro majors). Now half way through the degree, thoughts of what employment will look like are frequently arising. Research is alluring, I think, as is a PhD. Learning how to practice science is certainly the hard part for me, applying the knowledge we are learning into problem solving and critical questioning skills specifically.

Do you have any direct evidence that this period is anti-science? I know a lot of people are saying it is, but I think that's just a political ploy, or scientists moaning about their lot.

How about the whole ‘Natural’ industry; naturopathy, homeopathy, organic food, super foods, anti-western medicine etc.?

 

[svart-hvitt]

But at first glance, it looks like an attempt to deviate from the established 'rules' of science and yet to cling onto the name 'science'. Why not ditch the 'science' moniker and change it to 'Social Policy Research' or something? Wouldn't this then free them from the shackles of scientific objectivity, etc. and allow them to do what they obviously really want to do: help people with politics?

To answer your critique of Flyvbjerg, let’s let Flyvbjerg speak for himself via an old response from him regarding the question «what is theory»:

«WHAT IS THEORY?

'Graham Room claims I have "a particular view of theory - as hypotheses that can be subjected to quantitative empirical assessment in large datasets." This is incorrect. If Room had read my paper more carefully, he would not have had to guess at my view of theory, and get it wrong. He would have found that I explicitly write in my paper, "[t]he term 'theory' is here used to denote an idea, or a system of ideas, used to account for or explain a situation." This definition is not limited to "quantitative empirical assessment" or "large datasets." It would apply just as well to qualitative phenomena and qualitative validity assessments. My definition of theory is therefore wider than the tired either/or of quantitative versus qualitative assessment that Room seems to allude to in his false critique.'»
Source: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...9120089099006004074030004024095125020&EXT=pdf

 

[SIY]

I note that Norman Borlaug's research, which probably has done more to save and enrich lives in the Third World than all the UN and government efforts combined, was mostly funded by private foundations. So it's not just "profit or government."

Of course, it was soi-disant environmentalists who were his biggest roadblock. "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche ."

 

[Wombat]

I’m really enjoying this thread, especially the fact that it has pretty much stayed on track for 5 pages now! I’m retraining, in my 40’s, to be a "scientist" having begun a BSc (biotech and enviro majors). Now half way through the degree, thoughts of what employment will look like are frequently arising. Research is alluring, I think, as is a PhD. Learning how to practice science is certainly the hard part for me, applying the knowledge we are learning into problem solving and critical questioning skills specifically.



How about the whole ‘Natural’ industry; naturopathy, homeopathy, organic food, super foods, anti-western medicine etc.?

Most of them are just belief systems, like audiophilia, that fall apart when asked to prove their claims.

 

[Wombat]

I note that Norman Borlaug's research, which probably has done more to save and enrich lives in the Third World than all the UN and government efforts combined, was mostly funded by private foundations. So it's not just "profit or government."

Of course, it was soi-disant environmentalists who were his biggest roadblock. "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche ."

I did include philanthropists(e.g.private foundations) in my post. Maybe I should have said philanthropy.

 

[astr0b0y]

Most of them are just belief systems, like audiophilia, that fall apart when asked to prove their claims.

That’s true of course, but doesn’t change the fact that they are particularly focussed on being anti-science/anti-expert as part of their beliefs.

 

[oivavoi]

Taking a step back again; what is science and what are the ways of science?
....
The point of the author is of utmost importance: An activity may cease to be scientific if it emulates the just steals the clothes of another science. Case in point: If social sciences just copy terms, definitions, calculus, language and other «clothes» from the natural sciences, the social sciences cease to be of practical relevance - and is therefore not science.

So when you experience that real social science differs from the natural sciences, it is not an indication that real social science is fake science. On the contrary, it may be social science that emulates and uses the tools from the natural sciences that is fake science.

I believe this crucial point is the source of much confusion and skepticism towards science among many people.

And I believe many on ASR have been blind to this point as well.

Dropping by in between the house renovation. I think this is spot on. Thanks, @svart-hvitt , I hadn't heard of him before. I will check him out.

Personally, I do social science for a living. I have also thought a lot about how social science is a "science", given that I teach a methods course to first year students every fall. To me, the constitutive things that makes science into science come down to three basic ethical requirements, and an institutional requirement. The ethical requirements are transparency, reliability, and truth-seeking. The institutional requirement is that my work should be open to critique from peers and colleagues who know more than I do.

When I do social science, it needs to be transparent. Other people need to be able to assess how I gathered my data, and how I reached my conclusions. There should be no shroud of mystery about what happens. This may seem obvious, but a lot of what goes for science is not transparent. This applies just as much to quantitative number crunching as to qualitative works.

Second, it should be reliable and truth-seeking. These two things go together. If my scientific pursuit is indeed truth-seeking - and I'm open to correct my opinions if the data tells me so - it will be more reliable.

The last requirement is institutional. As as person and researcher, I'm highly fallible. But the scientific institution as a whole is smarter than me. I therefore need to put my work out there for critique, and try to improve it when I receive critical comments.

----------

But what I've given up on since long, is the idea of "objectivity" - that I can in any way be impartial. I can't. I'm not. But I can try to be transparent about what I think and how I arrive at my conclusions. I can try to be truth-seeking in spite of my pre-existing opinions, and I can be open to critique.

I've also given up on the idea that social science should be like the natural sciences - that we should try to build cumulative knowledge that will one day give us a perfect understanding of the social world. It will never happen. Human society is ever-changing and always in flux. I'm happy if I'm able to understand just a little bit better a tiny piece of the things that go on right now in my own society.

I've also given up on the idea that social science should be detached from politics. The whole reason that doing social science is important, as I see it, is that it can be a tool to improve our human condition (if it was only knowledge for knowledge's sake, I would much rather have spent my time studying ancient civilizations or doing field biology expeditions into the Amazon). I don't think that social scientists should be afraid of stating what the political implications of our findings are.

But there is a balance here - we can't go all in and become politicians. The first ethical requirement for science is transparency and truthfulness. That's not the first requirement for politicians.

Summing it up: The requirement to be truthful, transparent and reliable are fundamental to any scientific pursuit. But this doesn't preclude engaging with society and the public, having views and opinions, and ultimately trying to use knowledge to improve the human condition.

 

[Wombat]

That’s true of course, but doesn’t change the fact that they are particularly focussed on being anti-science/anti-expert as part of their beliefs.

Or make up pseudo-science to add credibility to their unsupportable claims.

 

[Cosmik]

How about the whole ‘Natural’ industry; naturopathy, homeopathy, organic food, super foods, anti-western medicine etc.?

I'm pretty sure I could go back to the 1960s and find all of the above has been constant since then. But my impression these days is that a great deal of 'natural' *is* approved of by scientists - though possibly not for completely dispassionate scientific reasons.

By the way, do you remember this classic from 1988?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

 

[SIY]

I'm pretty sure I could go back to the 1960s and find all of the above has been constant since then.

Long before that. See, for example, Charles MacKay's classic "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." Or Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science."

 

[Wombat]

I'm pretty sure I could go back to the 1960s and find all of the above has been constant since then. But my impression these days is that a great deal of 'natural' *is* approved of by scientists - though possibly not for completely dispassionate scientific reasons.

By the way, do you remember this classic from 1988?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

The odd bogus scientific claim(not verified/repeatable) does not discredit science in general. There are lots of them out there. Insignificant numbers. Grasping at straws, here, Cosmick.
Hey these straws of yours may soon be paper ones(as of old) rather than plastic ones.

 

[SIY]

The odd bogus scientific claim(not verified/repeatable) does not discredit science in general.

In fact, quite the opposite- scientists test claims and if they fail, they're discarded. This is science at its best.

 

[Cosmik]

The odd bogus scientific claim(not verified/repeatable) does not discredit science in general. There are lots of them out there. Insignificant numbers. Grasping at straws, here, Cosmick.
Hey these straws of yours may soon be paper ones(as of old) rather than plastic ones.

I was just reminded of 'water memory' by Astr0B0y's list. I certainly don't think it discredited science, but was a minor, possibly amusing, intriguing little incident along the way. Clearly *you* think it did, in some way discredit science. But don't go projecting that onto me.

 

[Wombat]

I was just reminded of 'water memory' by Astr0B0y's list. I certainly don't think it discredited science, but was a minor, possibly amusing, intriguing little incident along the way. Clearly *you* think it did, in some way discredit science. But don't go projecting that onto me.

I clearly said 'IT DOES NOT DISCREDIT SCIENCE IN GENERAL'. Hey, you raised it as a negative point. PYMIGBYOYM.

Try using emojis.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Question to all science interested:

Is it science if the task focuses on what is variable, on that which cannot be encapsulated by universal rules, on specific cases, and requires an interaction between the general and the concrete, and further requires consideration, judgment, and choice?

 

[Cosmik]

I clearly said 'IT DOES NOT DISCREDIT SCIENCE IN GENERAL'. Hey, you raised it as a negative point. PYMIGBYOYM.

Try using emojis.

And I said 'IN SOME WAY'. You didn't say 'IT DOES NOT DISCREDIT SCIENCE'. Full stop. You added 'IN GENERAL'. Therefore you allowed that it discredited science 'IN SOME WAY'.