**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[Poopadoop]

A Psychologist calling himself a scientist. That is funny. Good post.

Well, I do experiments where I manipulate variables and measure the effects, and these are then peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals.

If that doesn't make me a scientist, I don't know what does.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well, I do experiments where I manipulate variables and measure the effects, and these are then peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals.

If that doesn't make me a scientist, I don't know what does.

Well, I wouldn't say that anyone who meets those criteria is automatically a scientist. If it weren't for the hubbub in the psychological fields over reproduciblility experiments, I'd say you had stronger legs to stand on with the "publication in reputable journals" part. It's just that it has recently been unveiled that those publications have gone untested by peers, and now that they are being tested, they're refuting more results than they are affirming.


You also left out hypothesis, creating and testing models and something about falsifiable conclusions, but meh. You probably do those things, so often that it is not in the front of your head that those are the sign posts on the path of science.

[Poopadoop]

Well, I wouldn't say that anyone who meets those criteria is automatically a scientist. If it weren't for the hubbub in the psychological fields over reproduciblility experiments, I'd say you had stronger legs to stand on with the "publication in reputable journals" part. It's just that it has recently been unveiled that those publications have gone untested by peers, and now that they are being tested, they're refuting more results than they are affirming.

For one, those reproducibility studies are themselves statistically flawed by the very criteria they use to assess what is reproducible. I've co-authored a paper on that very topic that is currently passed the first line of reviews and I expect to be getting accepted soon. So having the reproducibility project fail to replicate your work using their flawed criterion it is a bit like a moron calling you an idiot for them not doing things properly.

For another, going from the (flawed) assumption that the reproducibility studies are valid to the conclusion that as a psychologist I therefore belong in the same bin as the people whose studies fail to replicate (presumably through being poor at science) is itself a flawed generalisation, though I can see how it might be handy to make that assumption if it fits your purpose.

You also left out hypothesis, creating and testing models and something about falsifiable conclusions, but meh. You probably do those things, so often that it is not in the front of your head that those are the sign posts on the path of science.

lol, well since everyone in grade 8 knows that I didn't think it needed to be stated explicitly.