top of page

Predictive Strength, Not Consensus Models: Scientific Method #1

The Cornerstone of Science


The Broken Science Initiative is an scientific-method-focused organisation I listen to regularly on ytube. Yesterday (so humid!) I sat with my bubbly home-made spritz water watching their most recent vid release. Greg Glassman (founder of CrossFit, and co-founder of BSI) presents a workshop/discussion that:

  • Focuses on measurement accuracy for quality data

  • Laments the growing trend of non-transparent research reporting


  • Reiterates historical critiques on the drawbacks of relying on p-values

  • Discusses the dire consequences of current suppression of dissenting opinions



  • Encourages the audience to share anecdotes about 'the science is in' findings, which were later dismissed

  • Psychology's replication crisis

  • The value of the classical scientific method (observe, measure, replicate) for real change

  • The difference between science and consensus/authoritative opinions

  • How validity is established in classical use of the scientific method (i.e., prediction strength)

  • Misleading research conclusions based on relative risk reporting, rather than that of absolute risk

  • The usefulness of open dialogue to further active critical thinking

  • Urges a return to the classical scientific method (true science)



For Glassman and co, true science is modern science (the scientific method), and is becoming rare in academia and the medical field. Alterations have been made to the core mechanics of the scientific process. This has created an ineffective system for discovery, knowledge creation, and interaction with the world, including each other.


Such compromise of the traditional way in 'doing' science, has lead to "epistemic debasement". This degrades the foundations of knowledge acquisition, validation, and dissemination of findings. People become misinformed, less able to make informed choices, risking a distrust in science. As the credibility of sources of knowledge lessens, a person is less likely to strive to be an active critical thinker. Why bother?


Educated skepticism can quickly become cynicism, with disengagement from the learning process in science. Or, there may be uncritical acceptance of biased findings. Vulnerability to nefarious manipulation is increased either way.


Whereas a grounding in the classical scientific method can provide a person with the mental tools (psycho technology) to challenge, query, and remain curious about information and how it is validated.


This can cultivate personal growth, as well as nurture social cohesion, community resilience and preparedness, and broader economic development. It is crucial to democracy, justice, and a functioning political system that citizens are informed and equipped to evaluate information.


I think for a psychology student this seminar can help develop your active critical thinking. As well as give you ideas about how to critique literature for essays and research reports. Perhaps also, the video is a prompt for you to consider the role of trust, knowledge, and collaboration in the psychological sciences for your emerging practice.

Light & Life~ Charmayne


Buy me a coffee~




Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page