How much do you know about science?

[Augustus]

And which areas of knowledge are counter to scientific research?

You are changing my words.

When is scientific research often incorrect?

Social psychology, neuroscience, medicine, are some areas with high error rates for published research (30-50+% iirc)

Then common sense once again fails to consider what is relevant. Instead of the accuracy in the past, perhaps the quality of data in the present is more pertinent.

Nah. In the past people thought their data was good enough too.

A hallmark of scientism is overconfidence is scientific findings (which is unscientific of course), sometime you might have to concede that the problem is not being caused by individual errors but by the nature of the domain itself.

A narrow focus on technique and data, without a bit of common sense might cause one to make the same mistake you are making.

Psychology, neuroscience and medicine have poor records, whereas areas like geology and chemistry have good records.

It is an issue of complexity, not 'quality of data'.

Does common sense have a better track record for truth than scientific research?

I'm not the one proposing an either/or.

I'd take both, wouldn't you?

 

[Polymath257]

You are changing my words.

When is scientific research often incorrect?

Social psychology, neuroscience, medicine, are some areas with high error rates for published research (30-50+% iirc)

Perhaps the issue is using p<.05 as the criterion for confidence. I would suggest p<.0005. Not as good as the 'good areas', but far better than what we see now in some.

Nah. In the past people thought their data was good enough too.

A hallmark of scientism is overconfidence is scientific findings (which is unscientific of course), sometime you might have to concede that the problem is not being caused by individual errors but by the nature of the domain itself.

A narrow focus on technique and data, without a bit of common sense might cause one to make the same mistake you are making.

Psychology, neuroscience and medicine have poor records, whereas areas like geology and chemistry have good records.

It is an issue of complexity, not 'quality of data'.

I disagree. Most of the problem with psychology and medical 'science' is the small samples sizes and poor statistical analysis. Those produce very poor levels of confidence, to the place that we *expect* 1 out of 20 studies to be false positives. And then, if further studies base themselves on the previous poor studies, the effect propagates.

Yes, this is a profound fault in those people doing the 'science' in those areas.

I'm not the one proposing an either/or.

I'd take both, wouldn't you?

Generally speaking, common sense is neither.