What's the least scientific science? Is it sociology

Probably psychology because of them unreproductible studies.

As a /k/ommando, that news article makes my heart weep.

>>8224588
computer science

>>8224653
computer science isn't science
it's a subfield of math

Why would anthropology be the "least scientific" study?

>>8224588
Sometimes I'm bloody ashamed of my country.

Also- Psychology, or anything that deals in observing human behaviour.

>>8224596

>unreproductible studies

What unreproducible studies?

>>8224596

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/

>>8224588
Anti-smoking studies.

Dark matter
literally a money scam

>>8224792

"“If you are going to replicate 100 studies, some will fail by chance alone. That’s basic sampling theory."

kek, is this true for real science like chemistry and physics?

File: 1454717540833.png (283KB, 718x720px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 718x720px

>>8224792
>As an example, Gilbert described an original study that involved showing white students at Stanford University a video of four other Stanford students discussing admissions policies at their university. Three of those talking were white and one was black. During the discussion, a white student made offensive comments about affirmative action, and the researchers found that the observers looked significantly longer at the black student when they believed he could hear other comments than when they believed he could not.

>“So how did they do the replication? With students at the University of Amsterdam!” Gilbert said. “They had Dutch students watch a video of Stanford students, speaking in English, about affirmative action policies at a university more than 5,000 miles away.”

>In other words, unlike the participants in the original study, participants in the replication study watched students at a foreign university speaking in a foreign language about an issue of no relevance to them

lmao, how can people claim that psychology is a science?

>>8224821

Yes.

You should read up on methodology and statistical analysis.

>>8224894
If an experiment in physics went wrong even 10% of the time, computers wouldn't work

>>8224823

Well that would still be a scientific study, even if it seems arbitrary and unnecessary.

There's a lot of fluff in psychology, especially at universities that place psychology in their humanities department.

Those sort of psychology departments pretty much aren't scientific and unfortunately there are way too many of them.

But there are several good universities that are producing decent data and theory, relating to psychology.

It's just a shame that the field is polluted by meme science and reckonings.

File: NDT.png (382KB, 1560x692px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1560x692px

>>8224588
ECONOMICS

They call it the dismal science for a reason.

>>8224927
wow, i love tyson now

>>8224896

That's a ridiculous statement.

I work in particle astrophysics and things do go wrong occasionally.

This is typically related to some form of system error or incorrect programming on the part of a researcher.

Papers are written up and then retracted when somebody realises the error.

This whole hierarchy of science meme is also getting ridiculous.

Science is science and bad science is bad science, regardless of field.

Highly applied fields like medicine and psychology have more room for error and are susceptible to interest groups biasing studies; however, that does not mean that they aren't sciences.

It just means you have to be cautious when interpreting results and conduct regular systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

This allows people to check for methodological flaws and statistics errors.

Please learn how science works before shitposting.

>>8224927
What a stereotypical reddit comment holy fuck that place is cancerous