How can you tell if scientific evidence is strong or weak?

[Coach is Back!]

http://www.vox.com/cards/savvy-science-reader/scientific-evidence-intro-card

[tommywishbone]

If research is published in a peer reviewed journal it's good science, if it's not it's not.

[Coach is Back!]

If research is published in a peer reviewed journal it's good science, if it's not it's not.

But there is science in peer reviewed journals that can also refute other studies.

[thegamechanger]

you cant there is no scientific evidence of anything

[ritch]

you try it in real life.

[Parker]

you try it in real life.

kinda like "If he dies, he dies"?

[Coach is Back!]

you try it in real life.

This is the real answer at least when it come to training.

[jephrius]

http://www.vox.com/cards/savvy-science-reader/scientific-evidence-intro-card

This question was discussed for most of us Freshman year at University.

[Coach is Back!]

This question was discussed for most of us Freshman year at University.

ok, what was the conclusion coming from your side of the world?

[Thong Maniac]

Helps if you have studied science at the university level

[SF1900]

http://www.vox.com/cards/savvy-science-reader/scientific-evidence-intro-card

# 6 is probably the most important. Most peer-reviewed journals don't make it mandatory to report the effect size between two variables. This makes it difficult to determine the strength of the relationship between two variables. Studies can show that there is a relationship between two variables, but it does not say the strength of these variables. More and more peer-reviewed journals are requiring researchers to report effect size.

Not to sound like an asshole, but all of those 8 points I learned in 11th grade statistics. The issue is that statisticians spend DECADES studying those 8 points. What this means is the average layperson just can't come and start critiquing research based on those 8 points lol. It's way more complicated than that. It may be a good starting off point, but in the long run, youre going to need to develop a much more in-depth understanding of statistics (ANOVAs, regression analyses, MANOVAs, chi-squares, t-tests, etc) to truly be able to critique research.

Not to mention that ALL journals require research articles to spend a certain amount of time discussing the limitations in their study. In the conclusion section of journal articles, you will always find researchers discussing the "LIMITATIONS" and need for "FUTURE RESEARCH" regarding the topic.

[The Ugly]

Wait, are we discussing hypertrophy or global warming?

[Coach is Back!]

Wait, are we discussing hypertrophy or global warming?

Exactly.

[SF1900]

Wait, are we discussing hypertrophy or global warming?

Cue Basile.

[Coach is Back!]

I had two clients that majored in child psychology (husband/wife) and they basically told me that what they learned In college dispite the studies, were but thrown out the window onne they had kids. These studies change dramatically in real life situations.

[The Ugly]

I had two clients that majored in child psychology (husband/wife) and they basically told me that what they learned In college dispite the studies, were but thrown out the window onne they had kids. These studies change dramatically in real life situations.

Soft science is like that.

[SF1900]

Soft science is like that.

To an extent. Research is supposed to inform clinical work. The part where Coach goes wrong is not realizing that studies are supposed to INFORM, not DICTATE your clinical work. Meaning, their is an integration between intuition, research, and real life experience. No researcher ever said, especially in the soft sciences, that their research 100% works for every client. You take the research, digest it, and apply it as necessary. Coach is looking at it from a black and white perspective. It either applies or it doesn't. It's not the way it works. Any person who works with children and families will tell you that they read the research, and apply it to their clinical work. They then alter the research to adapt to the family as necessary.

[el numero uno]

I had two clients that majored in child psychology (husband/wife) and they basically told me that what they learned In college dispite the studies, were but thrown out the window onne they had kids. These studies change dramatically in real life situations.

Coach, once again you imply that going to college is a waste of time. I really doubt what your friends told you implied statistics were useless or something like that.

[dr.chimps]

http://www.vox.com/cards/savvy-science-reader/scientific-evidence-intro-card

Let me guess. You don't actually involve your self with this site, you just got the link from one of your GOP noise generators. 

[MikMaq]

http://www.vox.com/cards/savvy-science-reader/scientific-evidence-intro-card

So after 10 years of being by far the most stupid unintelligent poster on the forum you post proof that you have no fucking concept of logic or reason

[Hulkotron]

To an extent. Research is supposed to inform clinical work. The part where Coach goes wrong is not realizing that studies are supposed to INFORM, not DICTATE your clinical work. Meaning, their is an integration between intuition, research, and real life experience. No researcher ever said, especially in the soft sciences, that their research 100% works for every client. You take the research, digest it, and apply it as necessary. Coach is looking at it from a black and white perspective. It either applies or it doesn't. It's not the way it works. Any person who works with children and families will tell you that they read the research, and apply it to their clinical work. They then alter the research to adapt to the family as necessary.

It is similar to the type of people who hear "Statistically you are likely to make more money if you graduate college" and respond with "Oh yeah tell that to Bill Gates har har har".

Like a child wandering in in the middle of a movie.

[SF1900]

It is similar to the type of people who hear "Statistically you are likely to make more money if you graduate college" and respond with "Oh yeah tell that to Bill Gates har had har".

Like a child wandering in in the middle of a movie.

haha, yes, I love those morons. Take one, isolated case, especially of a man who was probably a genius from childhood, and use him as an example. When someone uses that excuse about not attending college, I just laugh. Not that there is anything wrong with not attending college, but don't think youre going to wind up like Bill Gates, either.

They just don't get it. 

[doison]

I had two clients that majored in child psychology (husband/wife) and they basically told me that what they learned In college dispite the studies, were but thrown out the window onne they had kids. These studies change dramatically in real life situations.

Psychology is a soft science. 

Math and physics (possibly engineering) are science.  Everything else pretends to be science

[gcb]

Science is not perfect but in general: Peer reviewed journal > The Bible.

[SF1900]

Psychology is a soft science. 

Math and physics (possibly engineering) are science.  Everything else pretends to be science

From what I have read, even math supersedes physics, in terms of being the most "hard" science.

I do not think those other disciplines "pretend" to be a science. They are well aware of their shortcoming. Nonetheless, soft sciences have made important contributions to humanity. Its just a different way of thinking about things.