Psychology’s Fears Confirmed: Rechecked Studies Don’t Hold Up

An article from the NY Times:

“The past several years have been bruising ones for the credibility of the social sciences. A star social psychologist was caught fabricating data, leading to more than 50 retracted papers. A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized. The journal Science pulled a political science paper on the effect of gay canvassers on voters’ behavior because of concerns about faked data.

Now, a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested.

Only 35 of 100 studies that the Reproducibility Project looked at held up fully to scrutiny….The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory.”

Most “social science” is not science at all. It’s nothing more than science-flavored fiction concocted by people who look and talk like scientists, but are merely mimics with agendas. Its been known for at least two decades that 30-40% of the hard science papers could not be replicated. It is thus no surprise that 60% of the psychology findings (soft sciences) cannot be replicated at all. The peer review system is corrupt and the entire government-funded R&D milieu is similarly corrupt.

The problem with most modern “sciences” (social science, political science, etc. – there’s a reason they have to include “science” in their name when physics or biology don’t) is that it skips observation, goes right to making a theory, and then only accepts evidence that supports that theory. Scientists have become the new corrupt clergy. Progressivism married “scientific management” of society with the iron fist of the state in order to yield Heaven on Earth (the obverse of the coin showing Marx’s “new man”). This made scientists into clergy a long time ago. Corruption followed on the heels of power.

There will be many who are angered by this; many who object to the miasma of deception being shown for what it is because it upends their tidy little view of the world. But if sanity is a relentless effort to perceive the world as it really is and align ones actions accordingly, is it not of vast explanatory value to recognize that the people in charge of defining the relevant facts of reality were instead jotting down their own delusions? In light of these revelations, I wonder how many in today’s emotion-centric world will be able to cling to the notion that feelings trump logical conclusions?


Theme and Variation

This is wonderful. I needed this so. Andrew Kern from Circe Institute:

If we want our schools to flourish we need to order them to, in, and by Christ. Nothing else is a sufficient principle of order. College admissions, for example, can work as a guide if human life can be defined by the act of getting into a good college. But if it isn’t and if that end still guides the curriculum and pedagogy of a school, then it isn’t a big enough principle to enrich much of it. The school may succeed in “worldly” terms, but it will grow strangely dim. 

But if to become like Christ, if to become a variation on that theme, is the goal of the school, if Christ the Incarnate Logos orders the curriculum, pedagogy, goverance, environment, community, and even modes of assessment of the school or home, then something will live that Christless eyes can never see.

I want to appeal to every Christian who educates anybody or who oversees any educational community, please believe in Him and do not fear the world. We cannot afford it any more. If we have not had faith in the green years, how will it arise in the brown? We all need to repent. None of us have fervently and perfectly made Christ the Logos of our school or home. Let us begin now.

Let us who carry His name believe in Him. He is up to the task. He is sufficient.

Let us repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Read the whole thing here.

I am in awe of Trump fans.

I get that he has stood up for himself to the media, and he said things people agree with about illegal immigration, but being a tough guy who is right on one issue does not a president make.

Trump isn’t even a conservative. He stood on stage Thursday night and defended universal healthcare. He stood on stage and proudly admitted that he had contributed to the corruption in Washington he now says he will fix. In the past he has come out in favor of gun control and in favor of fixing the deficit by forcing wealthy Americans to forfeit about 15% of their total net worth. These aren’t conservative positions and, unfortunately, he isn’t correcting them in any of the interviews I’ve seen or the debate (he did give a good answer on abortion, for which I give him credit, but it was the only good answer he gave all night). This is the person conservatives are hitching their wagon to? Seriously? He has offered nothing but anger and empty platitudes.

He has been consistently asked how he plans to accomplish any of the outlandish things he claims he can do, like forcing Mexico to pay for a wall on the border, and he always brushes it off by saying something like, “Trust me, I’ll do it.” What kind of answer is that? His website doesn’t list any of his positions or how he will fulfill any of his campaign promises. It sounds like he is making a bunch of promises he has no idea how to keep.

And then we have the issue with misogyny. Other people have said it and it is true, whether or not it was a good/fair question, Trump had the opportunity to respond to it well and put the issue to bed. The sad thing is, he was doing a decent job until he threatened Kelly at the end of his response. Then he followed that up by attacking her for two days straight like a petulant child having a fit, calling her a bimbo by proxy, and now intimating that she was mean Thursday because she was on her period. Seriously?

I’ve seen people defend Trump by saying we don’t need another polished, do-nothing politician, but there is a base level of decency and class that a person running for the office of POTUS should display, and Trump doesn’t. Yes, I get the idea that he gives back what he gets. Super. But at some point you have to rise above it and be the sane one in the room. Just as an example, when Trump as president has a bad negotiation with Angela Merkel, will he call Don Lemon and call her a pig? Will he intimate things fell apart because she was on her period? He hasn’t given us any reason to think not.

I’m also amazed at the reaction toward Fox News. I guess Trump supporters expected the moderators to just put the questions on a tee so the candidates could spew talking points and everybody could just call it a night. But they didn’t, they actually did their jobs. And it was fair. They asked all the other candidates really tough questions as well, and most of them did a really good job of answering. If Trump’s sounded harsher, that’s because he has said and done some really stupid things that he will have to answer for on the trail. That’s life and that’s how campaigns work. Honestly, how was the questioning of Trump any more difficult than the question Christie got about his state’s credit rating being downgraded nine times, Ben Carson being knocked hard for his lack of knowledge in previous remarks, or Scott Walker being asked if his abortion stance would let mothers die?

And did anyone notice the questions the JV contestants got? To Gov. Bobby Jindal: Almost no one in Louisiana likes you. To Rick Perry, the former Texas governor: You can’t possibly think anyone would vote for you after your last presidential campaign. To Jim Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia: Aren’t you too old? To George E. Pataki, the former New York governor: Who are you again? These are things these candidates may be attacked with in the future, so why not get it out in the open early and see what they do. But they all handled themselves pretty well.

The notable exception is the candidate I have seen Trump supporters claiming Fox was in the tank for, Jeb Bush. He answered some of his questions atrociously. If Fox was in the tank for him, they did a terrible job of it. I’ve even seen some people suggest they gave him his questions ahead of time so he could be prepared. If that is true, he did a horrendous job. He floundered on the Common Core issue, which is an issue a lot of people will refuse to vote for a candidate over no matter how great his stances are on other issues. And he basically admitted he was a lazy moron who approved budgets without reading them on the Planned Parenthood question. Someone will play the clip of Pelosi saying they have to pass the bill to see what’s in it and then play that soundbite of him right after. And how will he answer it? He won’t be able.

This is ridiculous. Trump fans went into this debate with their minds made up. They must be buying into the cult of celebrity, because their chosen candidate isn’t offering much substance. I don’t see how they thought this was unfair at all. The moderatos were there to poke holes in the candidates’ canned talking points and make them answer for the mistakes they’ve made in the past. Some rose to the occasion and sounded authoritative and in control by doing so. In other words, they sounded presidential. Trump sounded flummoxed during the debate and then like a scolded child pitching a fit afterward. But it won’t get easier. As the campaign wears on the media will ask increasingly difficult questions. Some seem ready to handle them graciously and give solid responses. Trump’s plan seems to be to dodge and deflect, and then attack the media as unfair and biased afterward. I guess we will see if that is a sustainable tactic.

Takeaway from the Varsity Debate:

The biggest winners were Cruz and Carson. Both were very articulate, they stayed above the fray with Trump, and were both funny and passionate. Cruz had more substance and actual policy discussion, while Carson showed himself to be thoughtful and measured.

Rubio made a lot of headway with some very good moments.

Huckabee really surprised me. I am definitely not a fan, but he had some very good moments where he used his charm to frame issues the way he wanted.

Rand Paul, who I like, was hard hitting and aggressive, but I’m not sure it played well. He doesn’t have Trump’s charm when being aggressive that way.

Walker was okay. Solid but not inspiring.

Christie had one really good answer about entitlements and was otherwise “meh”.

Why is Kasich in this race? The big thing I learned about him is his dad was a mailman.

Bush just looked bland and had real trouble with the Common Core and Planned Parenthood questions.

Trump is loved because he doesn’t take any guff and he is a tough guy standing up to the media. But he didn’t offer any real answers. He didn’t offer any real solutions. He had a few funny moments but nothing like Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, or Rubio, and he had several moments where he just came off as a jerk. He also had some really bad answers that conservatives won’t like. But based on what I saw on Twitter tonight, I’m not sure it will damage him in the polls at all. His supporters seem unshakeable.

Takeaway from the JV Debate:

Gilmore, Graham, and Jindal just don’t sound Presidential. Graham in particular is a joke. He is just insulting people, not giving any substantive answers.

Santorum is just “meh”.

Pataki just seemed to fade into the background.

Kudos to Perry for showing up. He did much better than 4 years ago, but that is a really low bar.

Carly Fiorina is impressive. Direct, substantive responses. She did a great job of packaging a lot of good information into clear, concise answers. She is the only candidate from this debate who deserves to move up to the varsity.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.”

– J. R. R. Tolkien (through Gandalf)