Getting p-values and confidence intervals wrong is definitely a problem, but the value of p-values has probably been simply to increase the threshold of evidence needed for a publication, regardless of whether the particulars about the statistical models are being used correctly (even improperly interpreted statistics will loosely track the strength of effect sizes).
Even if practitioners had a perfectly clear understanding of frequentist statistics, that probably wouldn't improve things; they'd still be debating with squishy, bendable theories using tiny effect sizes -- even if properly interpreted.
I think the field has had some success stories though. Reinforcement learning and behaviorism have discovered many reproducible phenomena, and formal modeling played _some_ (even if small) role in advancing deep learning (see Connectionism) and bayesian modeling (see Josh Tenenbaum + all the researchers in that circle).
So whether or not psychology is "fine" might still be open for discussion, but it's at least got potential.
Some good points and I agree there's potential. It's unfortunate that psychology has been tarred as the bad science when it's one of the few that has tested itself, and psychologists are most aware of reform efforts.
Nonetheless psychology is where the debate is happening and I don't think we should overstate progress. Sometimes psychology is also used as a canary in the coalmine, which is inappropriate too. Every field should be tested directly.
Am in a doctorate program. Had a dissertation chair (who I changed from) note that research can be done by simply reading the abstract and the conclusion. When I noted this to the dean and mentioned the replication crisis problems, I was told it wasn’t an issue. Later during a class in highlighting the failures of Porges’s polyvagal theory, the professor said it didn’t matter that the theory lacked evidence but just to focus on how it could still be useful for clients.
I could go on. The problems of psychology have not been addressed.
A problem is that Psychology wants to be considered a science, like economics, anthropology, sociology, and others, but it's just an instrumental anachronism. Nowadays, it tries hard to corrupt neuroscience.
Getting p-values and confidence intervals wrong is definitely a problem, but the value of p-values has probably been simply to increase the threshold of evidence needed for a publication, regardless of whether the particulars about the statistical models are being used correctly (even improperly interpreted statistics will loosely track the strength of effect sizes).
Even if practitioners had a perfectly clear understanding of frequentist statistics, that probably wouldn't improve things; they'd still be debating with squishy, bendable theories using tiny effect sizes -- even if properly interpreted.
I think the field has had some success stories though. Reinforcement learning and behaviorism have discovered many reproducible phenomena, and formal modeling played _some_ (even if small) role in advancing deep learning (see Connectionism) and bayesian modeling (see Josh Tenenbaum + all the researchers in that circle).
So whether or not psychology is "fine" might still be open for discussion, but it's at least got potential.
Some good points and I agree there's potential. It's unfortunate that psychology has been tarred as the bad science when it's one of the few that has tested itself, and psychologists are most aware of reform efforts.
Nonetheless psychology is where the debate is happening and I don't think we should overstate progress. Sometimes psychology is also used as a canary in the coalmine, which is inappropriate too. Every field should be tested directly.
Am in a doctorate program. Had a dissertation chair (who I changed from) note that research can be done by simply reading the abstract and the conclusion. When I noted this to the dean and mentioned the replication crisis problems, I was told it wasn’t an issue. Later during a class in highlighting the failures of Porges’s polyvagal theory, the professor said it didn’t matter that the theory lacked evidence but just to focus on how it could still be useful for clients.
I could go on. The problems of psychology have not been addressed.
A problem is that Psychology wants to be considered a science, like economics, anthropology, sociology, and others, but it's just an instrumental anachronism. Nowadays, it tries hard to corrupt neuroscience.