1/ 🚨 Can We Save Science from Activism? 🚨
From endorsing political candidates to promoting exceptions for BLM protests during Covid lockdowns, modern social science has taken a political turn.
But science, when done right, is the best available tool to discover how the world really is—not what it should be.
So, what now? Scientists who still value objectivity lay out the path forward in Skeptic.
A thread 🧵👇
From endorsing political candidates to promoting exceptions for BLM protests during Covid lockdowns, modern social science has taken a political turn.
But science, when done right, is the best available tool to discover how the world really is—not what it should be.
So, what now? Scientists who still value objectivity lay out the path forward in Skeptic.
A thread 🧵👇
2/ Principle #1: Measure Well
Many social science ideas, like microaggressions, have fundamental measurement issues. If something is defined entirely by personal perception, how can we objectively test or falsify it?
Example: Some claim that microaggressions cause psychological harm. But what if highly neurotic individuals are both:
✔️ More likely to perceive slights
✔️ More likely to struggle with mental health?
Many social science ideas, like microaggressions, have fundamental measurement issues. If something is defined entirely by personal perception, how can we objectively test or falsify it?
Example: Some claim that microaggressions cause psychological harm. But what if highly neurotic individuals are both:
✔️ More likely to perceive slights
✔️ More likely to struggle with mental health?
3/ As psychologist Scott Lilienfeld pointed out, anything can be called a microaggression—including opposite behaviors.
Calling on a student vs. not calling on a student? Both have been labeled microaggressions.
Good science demands clear definitions and testable claims.
Calling on a student vs. not calling on a student? Both have been labeled microaggressions.
Good science demands clear definitions and testable claims.
4/ Principle #2: Objective Data > Lived Experience
Today, we see “lived experience” elevated as unquestionable truth. But perceptions can be wildly inaccurate.
Perception ≠ reality.
Example: If a scientist claims radio waves aren’t real because they personally haven’t heard them, we’d demand data. Their nationality, gender, age, family name, or any other personal attribute should play no role.
The same standard must apply across disciplines—psychology is no exception.
Today, we see “lived experience” elevated as unquestionable truth. But perceptions can be wildly inaccurate.
Perception ≠ reality.
Example: If a scientist claims radio waves aren’t real because they personally haven’t heard them, we’d demand data. Their nationality, gender, age, family name, or any other personal attribute should play no role.
The same standard must apply across disciplines—psychology is no exception.
5/ Principle #3: Correlation ≠ Causation
We want to see patterns, but science demands rigor. Just because two things happen together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Example: Some claim that lack of gender transition causes suicide. But what if underlying mental health factors explain both?
We want to see patterns, but science demands rigor. Just because two things happen together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Example: Some claim that lack of gender transition causes suicide. But what if underlying mental health factors explain both?
6/ Solutions. You may be wondering how it can be that social scientists regularly violate basic scientific principles—principles that are so fundamental that these same scientists routinely teach them in introductory courses. What’s going on?
7/ It’s time to return to first principles.
✅ Data over dogma
Read the full proposal here: skeptic.com/article/behavi…
✅ Data over dogma
Read the full proposal here: skeptic.com/article/behavi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
