I feel like this is incredibly misleading to clip out of the abstract when just above it we have:
If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in “softer” sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field’s level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand,
To clip the quote just after the statement “on the other hand” to give the definitive conclusion of the paper is pretty wack. Like the paper is literally titled “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
Further I think this meme isn’t about the fact that it’s literally impossible to do economics, or that there is nothing worth studying in markets. More that the orthodoxy and biases of economics muddy the field to the point of dishonesty, shown here as being 5 times more likely to be right when you can massage the factors compared to telescope data.
Yes, it’s very disingenuous to take the quote the abstract concludes on which plainly supports the social sciences as true scientific fields, contrary to what the OP implies through scare quotes.
By the way, here’s the full chart since you’re so worried about taking things “out of context”:
I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means. I am very smart™.
You’re bring a lot of energy that suggest to me this is a particular bone you have to pick. I agree econ can be a science. Sadly this meme doesn’t dive into the sociological foundations that validate the possibility of a hypothetical world where econ is done properly and can become a science along side other social sciences; choosing instead to just critique the absurdity of economics as it is currently exists.
I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means.
I think there are other issues with the paper that make me hesitant to take it’s conclusions at face value.
I feel like this is incredibly misleading to clip out of the abstract when just above it we have:
To clip the quote just after the statement “on the other hand” to give the definitive conclusion of the paper is pretty wack. Like the paper is literally titled “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
Further I think this meme isn’t about the fact that it’s literally impossible to do economics, or that there is nothing worth studying in markets. More that the orthodoxy and biases of economics muddy the field to the point of dishonesty, shown here as being 5 times more likely to be right when you can massage the factors compared to telescope data.
Yes, it’s very disingenuous to take the quote the abstract concludes on which plainly supports the social sciences as true scientific fields, contrary to what the OP implies through scare quotes.
By the way, here’s the full chart since you’re so worried about taking things “out of context”:
I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means. I am very smart™.
You’re bring a lot of energy that suggest to me this is a particular bone you have to pick. I agree econ can be a science. Sadly this meme doesn’t dive into the sociological foundations that validate the possibility of a hypothetical world where econ is done properly and can become a science along side other social sciences; choosing instead to just critique the absurdity of economics as it is currently exists.
I think there are other issues with the paper that make me hesitant to take it’s conclusions at face value.