Guess you don't know, if it is fake, do you?
All we have are a few point examples, the total fakery is an unknown.
For decades it has been noted that Math/Physics, are very difficult to peer review, because there might only be a few people that can understand each sub-field. And, since they all work together, there have been cases of 'collusion' in the past.
Social Sciences are not all fake, they do have reproducibility percentages over 50%. You can argue that isn't high enough for your taste, but it is a valid number. Maybe Physicist is in the >90%. That doesn't mean All social science is faulty, or all physicist are pure. They are different fields with different challenges with different ability to do measurements. So, it is hard to re-produce.
Lately, AI papers aren't able to be re-produced. Where is the hate for them?
HN has tendency to pile on to social sciences based on just the same sensational headlines without much knowledge of the fields.
FrustratedMonky|2 years ago
For decades it has been noted that Math/Physics, are very difficult to peer review, because there might only be a few people that can understand each sub-field. And, since they all work together, there have been cases of 'collusion' in the past.
Social Sciences are not all fake, they do have reproducibility percentages over 50%. You can argue that isn't high enough for your taste, but it is a valid number. Maybe Physicist is in the >90%. That doesn't mean All social science is faulty, or all physicist are pure. They are different fields with different challenges with different ability to do measurements. So, it is hard to re-produce.
Lately, AI papers aren't able to be re-produced. Where is the hate for them?
HN has tendency to pile on to social sciences based on just the same sensational headlines without much knowledge of the fields.