• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Can I swear on Talkbass?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#185
40Hz said:
Most social study "experiments" are hardly worthy of the term experiment if you know anything about experimental design.
Click to expand...

Of course -- but not because social scientists don't know anything about experimental design. Much social-scientific research is necessarily correlational rather than experimental because it would be impractical or unethical to experimentally manipulate independent variables of interest.

40Hz said:
They also get widely misinterpreted when reported by the press. Look at all the fun that came about when the Higgs-Bosun was dubbed "the god particle" by the popular press.
Click to expand...

This I completely agree with, and in fact the cited article is a good example: Some writer at Good Housekeeping magazine --not exactly a bastion of rigorous science -- used the word "experiment" inaccurately to describe one of the (correlational) studies reported by the original researchers. I strongly suspect that the original, peer-reviewed paper did not make that mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wulfensteiner, Kragnorak and 40Hz
#187
Lobster11 said:
I strongly suspect that the original, peer-reviewed paper did not make that mistake.
Click to expand...

The pier review results are in: Timeless style and flawless construction. ;)

2018-03-04 10.18.43.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker and Wulfensteiner
#190
48thStreetCustom said:
"Rule #2: Do not post profanity or obscenity. Because this forum is viewed by bassists of all ages, all posts must be suitable for viewing by minors. All profanity must be completely covered with asterisks, or completely substituted with "@%$#" symbols. Better yet, leave it out. Any use of creative lettering or partially masked profanity is not allowed. Obscene material, Strategically covered nudity, Sheer or see-through clothing, Lewd or provocative poses, Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches is not permitted, nor are links to websites containing such material or anything deemed inappropriate for minors. If what you have to say wouldn't be suited for network TV, the workplace, or your family, don't post it here."

Terms of Service and Rules | TalkBass.com
Click to expand...

10 4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogerMan79
#191
Lobster11 said:
Of course -- but not because social scientists don't know anything about experimental design. Much social-scientific research is necessarily correlational rather than experimental because it would be impractical or unethical to experimentally manipulate independent variables of interest.
Click to expand...

Agree. However a good deal of what passes for social research has gotten a little sloppy (to be polite) over the last decade or so. Especially when it comes to sample sizes if you're doing a correlation study. I see this happening in places such as academe where the researchers should know better. Something I'm sure you've noticed if you follow much of this.



This I completely agree with, and in fact the cited article is a good example: Some writer at Good Housekeeping magazine --not exactly a bastion of rigorous science -- used the word "experiment" inaccurately to describe one of the (correlational) studies reported by the original researchers. I strongly suspect that the original, peer-reviewed paper did not make that mistake.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It's refreshing to meet somebody who understands what science is and how a valid experimental study gets conducted. And also someone who has learned to take popular press reports on science topics with a wary eye. Welcome and well met! :):thumbsup:
 
#197
40Hz said:
Agree. However a good deal of what passes for social research has gotten a little sloppy (to be polite) over the last decade or so. Especially when it comes to sample sizes if you're doing a correlation study. I see this happening in places such as academe where the researchers should know better. Something I'm sure you've noticed if you follow much of this.
Click to expand...

I think the reason for the perception that the quality of social-science research is going downhill is related to the explosion of new open-access and pay-to-play journals over the last decade or so. This has diluted the average quality of published research by providing an outlet for studies that doesn't meet the standards of traditional peer-reviewed journals. The quality of research published in traditional peer-reviewed journals has increased over time, not decreased.

40Hz said:
Thank you. It's refreshing to meet somebody who understands what science is and how a valid experimental study gets conducted. And also someone who has learned to take popular press reports on science topics with a wary eye. Welcome and well met! :):thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Well, I do social (psychological) research and teach research methods and statistics for a living, so I'd like to think I know something about it. :smug:

I stopped giving interviews to journalists about my research many years ago after learning that what they wrote about our conversations was rarely an accurate representation of what I actually said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeyjm2, 40Hz, Kragnorak and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back