Yes I admit it’s a bit thin. My aim was not so much to drive a thesis (I don’t know enough about the topic to do that) but to raise the issue. I think it was quite succesful given the level of discussion—e.g. I learnt a lot from gwern’s excellent post above. That said, I could have been a bit clearer.
Anyway, I think one should be able to post this kind of posts in the discussion section (whereas in the main section you need to be more precise and detailed).
Anyway, I think one should be able to post this kind of posts in the discussion section (whereas in the main section you need to be more precise and detailed).
Agreed. I still would have liked more examples! :D
I feel like I would have gotten more out of this post if there were examples, or at least links to examples of some of the claims.
What is an example of a claim made by historians rooted in folk psychology?
What is an example of a social scientists argument which is flawed and known to be flawed by philosophers?
What are some examples of scientific papers making relatively simple mistakes?
ETA: Even better would be some analysis on how widespread these problems are in their respective fields.
There’s a statistical mistake appearing in half of academic neuroscience papers: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/bad-science-research-error
Yes I admit it’s a bit thin. My aim was not so much to drive a thesis (I don’t know enough about the topic to do that) but to raise the issue. I think it was quite succesful given the level of discussion—e.g. I learnt a lot from gwern’s excellent post above. That said, I could have been a bit clearer.
Anyway, I think one should be able to post this kind of posts in the discussion section (whereas in the main section you need to be more precise and detailed).
Agreed. I still would have liked more examples! :D