Can the Behavioral Sciences Self-Correct? A Social Epistemic Study

Felipe Romero*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Advocates of the self-corrective thesis argue that scientific method will refute false theories and find closer approximations to the truth in the long run. I discuss a contemporary interpretation of this thesis in terms of frequentist statistics in the context of the behavioral sciences. First, I identify experimental replications and systematic aggregation of evidence (meta-analysis) as the self-corrective mechanism. Then, I present a computer simulation study of scientific communities that implement this mechanism to argue that frequentist statistics may converge upon a correct estimate or not depending on the social structure of the community that uses it. Based on this study, I argue that methodological explanations of the “replicability crisis” in psychology are limited and propose an alternative explanation in terms of biases. Finally, I conclude suggesting that scientific self-correction should be understood as an interaction effect between inference methods and social structures.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)55-69
Number of pages15
JournalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A
Volume60
Early online date10-Nov-2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec-2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • CUMULATIVE KNOWLEDGE
  • STATISTICAL POWER
  • PSYCHOLOGY
  • REPLICABILITY
  • METAANALYSIS
  • REPLICATION
  • RELIABILITY
  • THESIS

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Can the Behavioral Sciences Self-Correct? A Social Epistemic Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this