Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

A lot of comments are missing a basic fact of how science works. In science we have a theory, make predictions, then stress test them.

This is one study examining a theory which we have various lines of evidence for. It is not supposed to prove the theory - just test one prediction. It is not supposed to be the end of research on this topic. It is not supposed to be final. Criticizing it for any of those things is a demonstration that you do not understand how science is supposed to function.

For some of the background on this particular theory I highly recommend reading https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/2009... and the follow-up https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/2009.... (If you want to get to the point, it is probably better to start with the follow-up.)

View on HN

> Criticizing it for any of those things is a demonstration that you do not understand how science is supposed to function.

Good luck criticizing science when you forbade yourself to criticize pretty much all study shortcomings using those all-encompassing guidelines that all point to a single conclusion, i.e. "Don't criticize me, I'm just a prediction bro".

There are useful criticisms, and useless criticisms. It is easy to criticize studies for not being what you want them to be, but the exercise is useless. It is harder to criticize studies for failing to be what they are supposed to be, but the exercise is far more useful.

Here are some valid criticisms of studies. It doesn't clearly state the theory. It doesn't clearly state the prediction. It doesn't actually test what it tries to test. It doesn't have references to where you can learn more about the theory. It fails to refer to important evidence in the literature that it should have. It doesn't describe the limitations of the design. It doesn't have suggestions about how to better follow up on the result.

In the end a study is supposed to be one point in a grand logical argument that eventually comes to a conclusion about said theory. It should be criticized based whether it is a well-made point, not on whether it is a complete argument.

Good luck with testing a psychology theory.

The fundamental problem with testing psychology was explained by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is that no theory has (yet) proven so compelling that everyone can agree on it. And that is the case because the subject is intrinsically complex.

That said, despite its limitations and current failures, we do not have a better intellectual process than science to study such questions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com