But true success will require a change in the culture of science. As long as the academic environment has incentives for scientists to work in silos and hoard their data, transparency will be impossible. As long as the public demands a constant stream of significant results, researchers will consciously or subconsciously push their experiments to achieve those findings, valid or not. As long as the media hypes new findings instead of approaching them with the proper skepticism, placing them in context with what has come before, everyone will be nudged toward results that are not reproducible.Failure in science is good because it advances knowledge. But Man is no longer willing to risk failure, so he no longer engages in science.
Most of what passes for "science" these days is what Vox Day dubbed scientistry. It is political consensus, fraud, and moral corruption. If the general public cannot separate the scientific method and science from Man-made scientistry, eventually it might put science in the same category as alchemy and astrology.
Certain fields such as psychology might already be worse. A fortune teller uses reality to construct a message for the customer. A successful fortune teller tells you what you want to hear in exchange for money, a good one (an oracle) tells you what you need to hear. Much of what passes for psychological research is an effort to obscure reality. It is a largely a propaganda arm of the Cathedral.
Unfortunately, the rest of us have not been quite so careful. More and more data show we should be. In 2015, researchers reported on their replication of 100 experiments published in 2008 in three prominent psychology journals. Psychology studies don’t usually lead to much money or marketable products, so companies don’t focus on checking their robustness. Yet in this experiment, research results were just as questionable. The findings of the replications matched the original studies only one-third to one-half of the time, depending on the criteria used to define “similar.”One problem for sociology is what Sailer calls "the war on noticing." Much of progressivism might be proven wrong by scientific studies, but disproving it is difficult. Those who do, such as Putnam, sit on their research for a time, or try to disprove it before releasing it (which is why it carries more weight and is more likely to be a significant finding). There are also other attempts to disprove it. Does Ethnic Diversity Have a Negative Effect on Attitudes towards the Community? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Causal Claims within the Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion Debate
Studies demonstrate a negative association between community ethnic diversity and indicators of social cohesion (especially attitudes towards neighbours and the community), suggesting diversity causes a decline in social cohesion. However, to date, the evidence for this claim is based solely on cross-sectional research. This article performs the first longitudinal test of the impact of diversity, applying fixed-effects modelling methods to three waves of panel data from the British Household Panel Survey, spanning a period of 18 years. Using an indicator of affective attachment, the findings suggest that changes in community diversity do lead to changes in attitudes towards the community. However, this effect differs by whether the change in diversity stems from a community increasing in diversity around individuals who do not move ( stayers ) or individuals moving into more or less diverse communities ( movers ). Increasing diversity undermines attitudes among stayers. Individuals who move from a diverse to a homogeneous community report improved attitudes. However, there is no effect among individuals who move from a homogeneous to a diverse community. This article provides strong evidence that the effect of community diversity is likely causal, but that prior preferences for/against out-group neighbours may condition diversity’s impact. It also demonstrates that multiple causal processes are in operation at the individual-level , occurring among both stayers and movers , which collectively contribute to the emergence of average cross-sectional differences in attitudes between communities. Unique insights into the causal impact of community disadvantage also emerge.
Related: On That Penis Paper Causes Global Warming Hoax
(Thanks to This Week In Reaction (2017/05/28))