Ben's essay sounds great! I'll definitely need to find time to read it. I am given comfort that the current moment in the psychology movement isn't unique: it means we might have a chance to resolve it, especially since the issues discussed are not at all unique to psychology as a field.
I am surprised that the idea of *explicitly* making certain questions off-limits has never occurred to me. This is likely because liberalism encourages us to tolerate experiments that, say, don't explicitly disregard the moral law. But this is likely survivorship bias: not engaging in cruel human experiments, for example, is obvious to me in part because of how much it's drilled into all of us after the many mistakes the scientific community made in the last century.
If I were to go a bit further than Ben does here, I would say that, for certain questions, we should just cut out the middle man: our society has come to over-rely on science to justify policy positions which are really in the domain of metaphysics. Just because a policy proposal has a weak measurable effect does not mean it isn't the right thing to do or a waste of resources. Furthermore, basing important decisions on psych research kinda implies the research is *good*. Given how much the field has struggled these past few decades, that seems like quite the wild assumption! Of course, as C. Thi Nguyen might put it, everyone in politics relies on data because they speak across ideological and cultural differences, and opinions usually don't. Given that the open movement more than anything else values honesty, we ought to be more honest with ourselves about the limitations of our persuasive methods, and sometimes just have faith that people on the other side of the aisle will get what we're tryna do.
The article you linked on Anthropology is paywalled. Why has public trust been lost? The public typically has little to no idea of what goes on in academic fields, which is an independent problem. In any case, Anthropology is a pretty strong field and has contributed some great insights recently. That's not any kind of general representation though, but I tend to think really good, durable work is uncommon in most fields.
I find Ben's post to be good, but seems to hold a very mainstream/institutional definition of both open science and social justice, which obviously affects the analysis and discussion. These are dominant forces, so it makes sense in that regard. All sorts of movements that begin in various outsider or radical groups tend to be co-opted by institutions, sometimes with good intentions but often little commitment, or sometimes because of their utility in symbolism. There's nothing about first principles open science or various equality/anti-oppression movements that are at odds. Nothing stated in the piece persuades me this isn't true, except at the level that's emerged in the mainstream. And, it seems important that people who don't know, should understand that real open science involves sharing everything done in research with everyone who is interested, and is not at odds with movements that aspire to all people being valued equally as humans. I will distinguish this position from the institutionalised science that takes place in our current liberal technocracy. That shit is threatened by all sorts of things long-term, and participants who domesticate one of these two movements for their own career ends will find conflict with the other. I suppose that's what Ben's piece is saying, just without acknowledging it.
Oh yeah. I get some sense of what you speak to in your first paragraph WRT activists. I'm assuming you mean aggressive progressives who are trying to impose change on mainstream institutions. Is that fair to say? I don't think they (or any person or group) have ideological, political or moral commitments of a special or unique status. They just conflict with the mainstream position, who hold power and whose actions are typically considered justifiable, whether violent or otherwise coercive. As they say, everything is political, which is particularly relevant when considering mainstream acts on a political level. I don't hold the same commitments btw, but I don't consider theirs special, or the mainstreams. That doesn't mean it's easy for these commitments to change. It's very possible for people to paint themselves into a corner in life, especially in this uncaring society.
No hate here by the way. Just critique. Obviously my background is quite different.
“There is nothing…Nothing stated…” That is hard for me to square. Once a movement is recognized as a movement it's assumptions are frozen as a given. The term “marginalized” for example is not amenable to challenge other than addition. Open Science on the hand must be open to multiplicity and where it takes us, whether the dissolution of our assumptions or reinforcement. Sure there may be institutional resistance to challenges of hallowed assumptions in open science, but it's first principles recognize that the institutional or political frame are not the end, albeit ubiquitous.
Hi Roger. Thanks for chiming in. I hear you, and I think any disagreement between you and me is probably at a much deeper level really. I suppose I also gather that there's some (many?) instances of conflict in psychology, between peeps who pursue one or the other of these things. My expertise is elsewhere, but I'll acknowledge that psychology is one of those fields that strikes interest from a broad swath of the population, and I include myself in that. I'm not an active follower though. I might be able to identify common ground between us more readily if I knew detail from some of these instances I'm speculating exist. I find it harder to guess at whether you have a sense of where I'm coming from. Less that I was in a very different field of biology for 20 years, and more the radical politics I hold, and how these ideas fit within that.
To me, movements don't need to be codified in the way you describe. Your example of defining something like 'marginalised' is well taken, but semantics can be far more diverse for some/many terms. The internet would be a more peaceful place if that wasn't the case! As I conceptualise open science, to take a very relevant example here, it reps a profound threat to our current institutionalisation of science. Is this likely to manifest anytime soon? Fuck no. Doesn't mean that won't ever be the case though. Improvements to knowledge and social support of sciences are stable enough that the idea will likely persist and evolve.
Hi Nat, thanks for the exchange. I can't say I do have a sense where you are coming from. I can offer you a few more dots to connect from my end if it helps. Having swum in turbulent political philosophies myself as a youth, I have since turned the chapter towards metamodernism with the help of the philosopher Alain Badiou, Being and Event which helped signal this new philosophical epoch, Bruno Latour and his structural analysis of science, Susan Haack for her sane procedural counterbalance to structure talk, Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth for cultural urgency, and Charles Pierce for his good old hybrid correspondence/pragmatist theory of truth as ballast. If you're patient with heady philosophical rumination, which you appear to be, then that might shine some light on where I am coming from and where my thinking goes regarding open science and our effort to strengthen the signal to noise ratio of truth.
I get how open science might threaten the current institutionalization of science as you put it, assuming you are referring to the structural incentives of institutions that might distort inquiry, inhibit truth seeking, and/or contribute to downstream human mayhem. With the help of AI we can map such structural incentives, be it funding/commercial bias and/or politicization, map the citation ecosystem including institutions of knowledge (Annual Review of Psychology) that produces wide-spread acceptance of overconfident claims, in order to shine a light on the players that feed noise and potential social unrest.
Hi Roger. I'm slower than I'd like replying, and not as thorough in doing now as I'd like (although this might be welcome, haha). I just have a few things competing for my time.
I appreciate you listing those folks whose thinking you like, thanks. I'll have a gander. The simplest description on my position I can give is that I think that anarchy/anarchism is the best way of structuring things that I'm aware of. I'm not into the commonly perceived aesthetics of it particularly. Anyway, so there are a bunch of people who have theorised stuff in that space. Outside of that though, there are many things out of socialism I consider fundamental. In particular Marx's alientation and the work Lukacs did to extend that are big for me. On science, I think Feyerbend's stuff aligns well with my thinking. I'm pretty influenced by pacifism and non-violence, and find it works quite well with critical rationalism as epistemology. Love is also something I take very seriously and I'm a fan of bell hooks and M Scott Peck on that. I've also been very inspired by teachings from Indigenous People.
Ultimately I think my problem with the way science (and most things really) are instiutionalised in a way the neglects the role they should play in working for all people. There's obviously a ton to elaborate on that, haha. I wish I had the time now, and concede this might be better fodder for a convo than a time sink in your life!
This was good. My only quibble would be in regards to the argument that social science is more rigorous than in the past. I think that’s sorta true but you may be too optimistic.
Some open science reforms like preregistration are good. But others have hidden pitfalls we still haven’t grappled with. Mainly large samples are good but again increase the risk of “noise/crud” becoming statistically significant. Social science has really failed to consider this and, if anything, we’ve seen a proliferation of LESS rigorous effect size interpretation recommendations that are reducing rigor. The argument is not against large samples but caution against naive interpretation of p values in large samples which makes false positive conclusions likely.
Do I overall think psychology is more rigorous? No, I just think we’re making different self serving mistakes.
Ben's essay sounds great! I'll definitely need to find time to read it. I am given comfort that the current moment in the psychology movement isn't unique: it means we might have a chance to resolve it, especially since the issues discussed are not at all unique to psychology as a field.
I am surprised that the idea of *explicitly* making certain questions off-limits has never occurred to me. This is likely because liberalism encourages us to tolerate experiments that, say, don't explicitly disregard the moral law. But this is likely survivorship bias: not engaging in cruel human experiments, for example, is obvious to me in part because of how much it's drilled into all of us after the many mistakes the scientific community made in the last century.
If I were to go a bit further than Ben does here, I would say that, for certain questions, we should just cut out the middle man: our society has come to over-rely on science to justify policy positions which are really in the domain of metaphysics. Just because a policy proposal has a weak measurable effect does not mean it isn't the right thing to do or a waste of resources. Furthermore, basing important decisions on psych research kinda implies the research is *good*. Given how much the field has struggled these past few decades, that seems like quite the wild assumption! Of course, as C. Thi Nguyen might put it, everyone in politics relies on data because they speak across ideological and cultural differences, and opinions usually don't. Given that the open movement more than anything else values honesty, we ought to be more honest with ourselves about the limitations of our persuasive methods, and sometimes just have faith that people on the other side of the aisle will get what we're tryna do.
The article you linked on Anthropology is paywalled. Why has public trust been lost? The public typically has little to no idea of what goes on in academic fields, which is an independent problem. In any case, Anthropology is a pretty strong field and has contributed some great insights recently. That's not any kind of general representation though, but I tend to think really good, durable work is uncommon in most fields.
I find Ben's post to be good, but seems to hold a very mainstream/institutional definition of both open science and social justice, which obviously affects the analysis and discussion. These are dominant forces, so it makes sense in that regard. All sorts of movements that begin in various outsider or radical groups tend to be co-opted by institutions, sometimes with good intentions but often little commitment, or sometimes because of their utility in symbolism. There's nothing about first principles open science or various equality/anti-oppression movements that are at odds. Nothing stated in the piece persuades me this isn't true, except at the level that's emerged in the mainstream. And, it seems important that people who don't know, should understand that real open science involves sharing everything done in research with everyone who is interested, and is not at odds with movements that aspire to all people being valued equally as humans. I will distinguish this position from the institutionalised science that takes place in our current liberal technocracy. That shit is threatened by all sorts of things long-term, and participants who domesticate one of these two movements for their own career ends will find conflict with the other. I suppose that's what Ben's piece is saying, just without acknowledging it.
Oh yeah. I get some sense of what you speak to in your first paragraph WRT activists. I'm assuming you mean aggressive progressives who are trying to impose change on mainstream institutions. Is that fair to say? I don't think they (or any person or group) have ideological, political or moral commitments of a special or unique status. They just conflict with the mainstream position, who hold power and whose actions are typically considered justifiable, whether violent or otherwise coercive. As they say, everything is political, which is particularly relevant when considering mainstream acts on a political level. I don't hold the same commitments btw, but I don't consider theirs special, or the mainstreams. That doesn't mean it's easy for these commitments to change. It's very possible for people to paint themselves into a corner in life, especially in this uncaring society.
No hate here by the way. Just critique. Obviously my background is quite different.
“There is nothing…Nothing stated…” That is hard for me to square. Once a movement is recognized as a movement it's assumptions are frozen as a given. The term “marginalized” for example is not amenable to challenge other than addition. Open Science on the hand must be open to multiplicity and where it takes us, whether the dissolution of our assumptions or reinforcement. Sure there may be institutional resistance to challenges of hallowed assumptions in open science, but it's first principles recognize that the institutional or political frame are not the end, albeit ubiquitous.
Hi Roger. Thanks for chiming in. I hear you, and I think any disagreement between you and me is probably at a much deeper level really. I suppose I also gather that there's some (many?) instances of conflict in psychology, between peeps who pursue one or the other of these things. My expertise is elsewhere, but I'll acknowledge that psychology is one of those fields that strikes interest from a broad swath of the population, and I include myself in that. I'm not an active follower though. I might be able to identify common ground between us more readily if I knew detail from some of these instances I'm speculating exist. I find it harder to guess at whether you have a sense of where I'm coming from. Less that I was in a very different field of biology for 20 years, and more the radical politics I hold, and how these ideas fit within that.
To me, movements don't need to be codified in the way you describe. Your example of defining something like 'marginalised' is well taken, but semantics can be far more diverse for some/many terms. The internet would be a more peaceful place if that wasn't the case! As I conceptualise open science, to take a very relevant example here, it reps a profound threat to our current institutionalisation of science. Is this likely to manifest anytime soon? Fuck no. Doesn't mean that won't ever be the case though. Improvements to knowledge and social support of sciences are stable enough that the idea will likely persist and evolve.
Hi Nat, thanks for the exchange. I can't say I do have a sense where you are coming from. I can offer you a few more dots to connect from my end if it helps. Having swum in turbulent political philosophies myself as a youth, I have since turned the chapter towards metamodernism with the help of the philosopher Alain Badiou, Being and Event which helped signal this new philosophical epoch, Bruno Latour and his structural analysis of science, Susan Haack for her sane procedural counterbalance to structure talk, Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth for cultural urgency, and Charles Pierce for his good old hybrid correspondence/pragmatist theory of truth as ballast. If you're patient with heady philosophical rumination, which you appear to be, then that might shine some light on where I am coming from and where my thinking goes regarding open science and our effort to strengthen the signal to noise ratio of truth.
I get how open science might threaten the current institutionalization of science as you put it, assuming you are referring to the structural incentives of institutions that might distort inquiry, inhibit truth seeking, and/or contribute to downstream human mayhem. With the help of AI we can map such structural incentives, be it funding/commercial bias and/or politicization, map the citation ecosystem including institutions of knowledge (Annual Review of Psychology) that produces wide-spread acceptance of overconfident claims, in order to shine a light on the players that feed noise and potential social unrest.
Hi Roger. I'm slower than I'd like replying, and not as thorough in doing now as I'd like (although this might be welcome, haha). I just have a few things competing for my time.
I appreciate you listing those folks whose thinking you like, thanks. I'll have a gander. The simplest description on my position I can give is that I think that anarchy/anarchism is the best way of structuring things that I'm aware of. I'm not into the commonly perceived aesthetics of it particularly. Anyway, so there are a bunch of people who have theorised stuff in that space. Outside of that though, there are many things out of socialism I consider fundamental. In particular Marx's alientation and the work Lukacs did to extend that are big for me. On science, I think Feyerbend's stuff aligns well with my thinking. I'm pretty influenced by pacifism and non-violence, and find it works quite well with critical rationalism as epistemology. Love is also something I take very seriously and I'm a fan of bell hooks and M Scott Peck on that. I've also been very inspired by teachings from Indigenous People.
Ultimately I think my problem with the way science (and most things really) are instiutionalised in a way the neglects the role they should play in working for all people. There's obviously a ton to elaborate on that, haha. I wish I had the time now, and concede this might be better fodder for a convo than a time sink in your life!
This was good. My only quibble would be in regards to the argument that social science is more rigorous than in the past. I think that’s sorta true but you may be too optimistic.
Some open science reforms like preregistration are good. But others have hidden pitfalls we still haven’t grappled with. Mainly large samples are good but again increase the risk of “noise/crud” becoming statistically significant. Social science has really failed to consider this and, if anything, we’ve seen a proliferation of LESS rigorous effect size interpretation recommendations that are reducing rigor. The argument is not against large samples but caution against naive interpretation of p values in large samples which makes false positive conclusions likely.
Do I overall think psychology is more rigorous? No, I just think we’re making different self serving mistakes.