

Why fewer women go into science and engineering - asimjalis
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/more-career-options-may-explain-why-fewer-women-pursue-jobs-in-science-and-math.html

======
lutusp
I hope no one is deluded into thinking that, because there is a journal called
"Psychological Science", that therefore psychology is a science. It isn't. If
all science required was a word, then Christian Science would be a science
also.

[http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/final-
repo...](http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/final-report-
stapel-affair-point.html)

Quote: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked
social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively
find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research
culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of
statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave
unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals
print results that are obviously too good to be true."

~~~
asimjalis
Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field?
Your point is certainly valid, but just because there are some poorly reasoned
papers in psychology it does not follow that all psychological research is
quackery.

~~~
lutusp
> ... just because there are some poorly reasoned papers in psychology it does
> not follow that all psychological research is quackery.

Your words, not mine. Psychologists aren't quacks, they're perfectly
respectable pseudoscientists, and there is plenty of research in the field,
some of it first-rate. But no amount of research can turn a field into a
science unless the research leads to the establishment of theoretical
principles. This is something psychologists famously avoid.

Once psychologists start shaping and testing theories, and agreeing on basic
principles, it is then that they will have crossed the threshold of science.
Once they move beyond description to explanation, then they will have crossed
the threshold of science.

Once psychologists rely on scientific evidence instead of votes ... All the
conditions that were added to, and removed from, the new DSM-V, were decided
-- not by evidence -- but by a majority vote.

Scientists let evidence rule. Psychologists let committees rule.

Imagine if real scientists behaved like psychologists: "Is there life on Mars?
Rockets are expensive -- let's vote!"

> Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire
> field?

I didn't tar the entire field. The Stapel Affair investigators tarred the
entire field. I merely quoted their reluctant conclusion.

More on this topic: <http://arachnoid.com/building_science>

