A 7-year study of 3,900 social science papers found that only ~50% could be replicated.There was significant variation across fields, however.While more than 60% of political science & econ papers were replicated, only ~25% of sociology & 0% of education papers were.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00955-5
/pol/ is no science.
>>17022581trust the science goytake the jab you fucking cattle slave
>>17022581none of these field are science
>>17022581>if only they know how bad it is in engineering and physical scienceWho knew hiring a bunch of unqualified pajeets/chinks with fake degrees and no moral fiber would have consequences?
>>17025470this is moreso the result of inviting women into the workplacethe west needs to take back control of the world and by that i mean destroy israel, enslave nonwhites, and snap women tf out of their dream that they are equal in heart or mind to men
Soft sciences are not actual science.
>>17022581>/pol/, /soc/, and /biz/ are all fake and gaytell us something we don't know
>>17022581Here is why the variance goes against sociology (and rel fields like gender """studies""") and education>n=(two digit number) all the fucking time>study can't clearly define how to empirically target or phrase the question to real world situations (i.e: if an education study tries to measure "underachievement" they either use a definition so overbroad or one thats niche that doesn't actually answer the question thats important for public policy)>"i dont know what a CI means" or>"wtf is sample size power, if cohen/pearson number positive, then good">any result that is in the negatives is because of random p-value fluctuations from the amount of variables we set (so long as even one of the others is positive)>when post analyzing the results, make the effect seem incredibly profound even if the effect size is like 0.1>do not cite any other literature other than papers that sound somewhat like they support your position, all others are le bigotry or le outdated because of your studyNo shit they can't replicate. Remember kids, in the soft """sciences""", research for them, 99% of the time, is "me-search". They are essentially just opinion pieces with fluff.I don't even think it's a conspiracy at this point. Speaking with soft science people gives me the impression that they genuinely don't understand why they above is harmful. If it corresponds with what they feel reality should be, they don't question it.
>>17022581Hard science is just autistic screechings
>>17022581If there's no 95% reproducability, then its not science.
