Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study

24Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Romero, F. (2016). Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 60, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.10.002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free