Harame, samo kratko: you're damn right da 'podcjenjujem' tu znanost.
Ali ne, to nije 'neutemeljeno'. Bacider samo pogled na
wiki, pogotovo ovaj odlomak o socijalnoj psihologiji.:
Firstly, questionable research practices (QRPs) have been identified as
common in the field.[13] Such practices, while not intentionally fraudulent, involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting, often in an
effort to obtain a desired outcome. Examples of QRPs include selective reporting or partial publication of data (reporting only some of the study conditions or collected dependent measures in a publication), optional stopping (choosing when to stop data collection, often based on statistical significance of tests), p-value rounding (rounding p-values down to .05 to suggest statistical significance), file drawer effect (nonpublication of data), post-hoc storytelling (framing exploratory analyses as confirmatory analyses), and manipulation of outliers (either removing outliers or leaving outliers in a dataset to cause a statistical test to be significant).[13][14][15][16] A survey of over 2,000 psychologists indicated that a majority of respondents admitted to using at least one QRP.[13] False positive conclusions, often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias, are an inherent hazard in the field, requiring a certain degree of skepticism on the part of readers.[17]
Praktički skoro sve što je ovaj lik pobrojao da spada u
nine circles of scientific hell
Kad mi se to 'znanstveno' polje još pača u etiku, a o filozofiji očito kurca ne kuži (jer valjda previše vremena troše na 'znanstvena' istraživanja, recimo to gore o internet trolovima, kako korisno i nadasve znanstveno) - dobijem ospice. Get the fuck outta here.
Evo ti još malo:
Are Most Published Social Psychology Findings False?
Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
Ovo zadnje nema strogo veze baš s pitanjem trolova kao takvih, ali čisto malo da vidiš odakle meni to 'neutemeljeno' podcjenjivanje dotične (pseudo
) 'znanosti'.
A konkretno:
haram wrote: ↑13 May 2017, 13:06
Ali ne možeš trolati svim ljudima sve vrijeme iz vlastitih opskurnih razloga
Tko je govorio o takvima? Ja kao prvo nemam pojma postoje li ljudi koji doslovno 'sve vrijeme, sve ljude' konstantno trolaju. Kako se to uopće može detektirati (da netko baš STALNO trola, a ne, recimo, samo 50% vremena, ili samo 80% vremena, LOL)? Kako je to uvažena doktorica detektirala?
Ja govorim o 'trolanju' kao o postupku, a ne o nekakvim fantomskim 'trolovima' koji valjda ne znaju ništa raditi osim konstantno trolati. Ti potonji meni uostalom zvuče kao mitska bića, no, nisam se baš time bavio tako da dopuštam čak i mogućnost da doktorica govori nešto suvislo. Iako bi me iznenadilo.