Review: 'Through the Shadowlands’ describes Julie Rehmeyer's ME/CFS Odyssey
I should note at the outset that this review is based on an audio version of the galleys and the epilogue from the finished work. Julie Rehmeyer sent me the final version as a PDF, but for some reason my text to voice software (Kurzweil) had issues with it. I understand that it is...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Science Alert: Two more classic psychology studies just failed the reproducibility test

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by AndyPR, Sep 26, 2016.

  1. AndyPR

    AndyPR Tired Sam ate all the cookies!

    http://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-studies-just-failed-the-reproducibility-test

    Not quite sure I agree with this opinion though, although, to be fair, my knowledge of psychological studies is more than somewhat limited.
     
    MeSci, Hutan, L'engle and 7 others like this.
  2. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,913
    Likes:
    14,348
    Monmouth, UK
    In a nutshell.
     
    Dolphin, MeSci, leela and 9 others like this.
  3. Gijs

    Gijs Senior Member

    Messages:
    639
    Likes:
    1,288
    First of all i would like to see an objective scientific definition of what psychology is. If everything is materialistic than the 'mind' doesn't exist. Conclusion: psychology as science is nonsens.
     
    John Mac, Effi, AndyPR and 1 other person like this.
  4. Glycon

    Glycon World's Most Dangerous Hand Puppet

    Messages:
    301
    Likes:
    477
    ON, Canada
    Both studies in question (the 1988 one on facial expressions and the 1998 one on "ego depletion") relate to issues of concern for ME/CFS sufferers. Recent discussion of Chalter et al. on emotional expressiveness elsewhere on these forums testifies to that.
     
    actup likes this.
  5. Gijs

    Gijs Senior Member

    Messages:
    639
    Likes:
    1,288
    Give me a scienetifical definition of psychology? What is the psycho or mind, Where is the exact location? Look at Karl Popper it is pseudoscience. Psychotherapy etc.. is not falsifiable.
     
  6. Gijs

    Gijs Senior Member

    Messages:
    639
    Likes:
    1,288
    Pace studies have no objective endpoints or observations. Totally subjective, no science :)
    Research in psychodynamic psychotherapy is simply impossible because the entity it deals with, the psyche, does not lend itself to scientific methodology.(Karasu) If you can show me where the psyche is on an MRI then we can talk more.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2016
    flybro likes this.
  7. wdb

    wdb Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes:
    2,766
    London
    :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: hahahaa yes with all those therapies that are impractical to blind, difficult to placebo match and outcome measures that can only be subjectively assessed, really methodologically strong!
     
  8. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes:
    3,325
    Logic.

    ***********************************************************************************************************************************************

    Bollocks.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2016
    flybro likes this.
  9. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes:
    3,325
    Are you using the same dictionary as the PACE authors. They had trouble understanding definitions of improvement and recovery.

    I notice you didn't challenge the definition of bollocks though.
     
    flybro likes this.
  10. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes:
    3,325
    I think that herein lies the problem.
     
    flybro likes this.
  11. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,266
    Likes:
    33,700
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    We do need to keep this in mind. Failure to replicate creates doubt, its not proof of more than that. Indeed this is where so many detractors of the XMRV research got it wrong. It takes a well designed study to demonstrate real failure, as happened with XMRV, but what failure to replicate shows is a need for such a study.
     
  12. Glycon

    Glycon World's Most Dangerous Hand Puppet

    Messages:
    301
    Likes:
    477
    ON, Canada
    Anyway, back on topic... There is a genuine practical problem faced by modern Big Science when it comes to the question of reproducibility. Namely, the cost. Many research projects are so expensive and so time-consuming, that it is not always clear that attempting to reproduce them is worth it, EVEN IF we leave any extra-scientific concerns aside (e.g., "vested interests").

    For example, suppose we have $10 million to spend on biomedical research. We could spend this money investigating something that hasn't been investigated before ("choosing to chase a 'new' discovery"). Alternatively, we could spend it reproducing someone else's research. If we choose to do the latter, then we either corroborate the original conclusions, or we don't. If we do, then we learn SOMETHING, but not as much as we could have learned had we pursued original research. Moreover, if it's something worth replicating in the first place, then our prior credence that it is largely correct should be pretty high.

    This is less of a problem for psychology (or sociology) than it is for the likes of CERND and NASA, so insofar as there is a ceiling to how expensive and time-consuming methodologically sound studies in psychology can get, certain advantage over cutting-edge particle physics and astrophysics is built into them. It's up to the scientists to make use of this advantage, however...
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
    RogerBlack likes this.
  13. Sushi

    Sushi Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    13,980
    Likes:
    21,296
    Albuquerque
    Please keep this thread on topic. Several off-topic posts have been deleted.
     
    AndyPR and Glycon like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page