“实验与失败”的同行评议

S. Devine, Stefan Gaillard
{"title":"“实验与失败”的同行评议","authors":"S. Devine, Stefan Gaillard","doi":"10.36850/r1.pr1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The paper ‘Alcohol cues and aggressive thoughts’ reports a failed attempt at reproducing two experiments. The massive shortcomings of the reported reproduction are obvious. For a moment I was tempted to think that the authors, in the form of a standard psychological paper, were presenting a philosophical critique of this type of experiments. In my comment I will try to formulate such a critique in a more straightforward manner. I will first give a brief and plain description of what happened in the experiment and why it was done, according to the authors. Then I will say a few things about the complexity of producing and reproducing experiments in general, followed by a section on the problems of the specific type of experiments of which this one is a specimen: priming studies, mostly found in the subdiscipline of social psychology and since almost a decade the subject of a vigorous debate among methodologists, philosophers of science, priming researchers, in scientific journals, but also in newspapers, magazines, blogs and on Twitter. I will end with assessing the possibilities and the limits of doing experiments in the human sciences: what can we learn from experiments on alcohol cues if we want to tackle physical, mental and social harm, attributed to the consumption of alcohol?","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peer Review of \\\"Experiment and Fail\\\"\",\"authors\":\"S. Devine, Stefan Gaillard\",\"doi\":\"10.36850/r1.pr1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction The paper ‘Alcohol cues and aggressive thoughts’ reports a failed attempt at reproducing two experiments. The massive shortcomings of the reported reproduction are obvious. For a moment I was tempted to think that the authors, in the form of a standard psychological paper, were presenting a philosophical critique of this type of experiments. In my comment I will try to formulate such a critique in a more straightforward manner. I will first give a brief and plain description of what happened in the experiment and why it was done, according to the authors. Then I will say a few things about the complexity of producing and reproducing experiments in general, followed by a section on the problems of the specific type of experiments of which this one is a specimen: priming studies, mostly found in the subdiscipline of social psychology and since almost a decade the subject of a vigorous debate among methodologists, philosophers of science, priming researchers, in scientific journals, but also in newspapers, magazines, blogs and on Twitter. I will end with assessing the possibilities and the limits of doing experiments in the human sciences: what can we learn from experiments on alcohol cues if we want to tackle physical, mental and social harm, attributed to the consumption of alcohol?\",\"PeriodicalId\":275817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trial and Error\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trial and Error\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36850/r1.pr1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trial and Error","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36850/r1.pr1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“酒精暗示和攻击性思想”这篇论文报告了重复两个实验的失败尝试。报道中再现的大量缺陷是显而易见的。有那么一刻,我忍不住想,作者是在以一篇标准的心理学论文的形式,对这类实验进行哲学批判。在我的评论中,我将尝试以一种更直接的方式提出这样的批评。我将首先给出一个简单明了的描述,在实验中发生了什么,以及为什么要这样做,根据作者。然后我会说一些关于制作和复制实验的复杂性的事情,然后是关于特定类型实验的问题的部分,这个实验是一个样本:启动研究,主要是在社会心理学的分支学科中发现的,近十年来,在科学期刊上,在报纸,杂志,博客和推特上,方法学家,科学哲学家,启动研究人员之间激烈辩论的主题。最后,我将评估在人文科学中进行实验的可能性和局限性:如果我们想要解决由饮酒引起的身体、精神和社会伤害,我们可以从酒精暗示的实验中学到什么?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Peer Review of "Experiment and Fail"
Introduction The paper ‘Alcohol cues and aggressive thoughts’ reports a failed attempt at reproducing two experiments. The massive shortcomings of the reported reproduction are obvious. For a moment I was tempted to think that the authors, in the form of a standard psychological paper, were presenting a philosophical critique of this type of experiments. In my comment I will try to formulate such a critique in a more straightforward manner. I will first give a brief and plain description of what happened in the experiment and why it was done, according to the authors. Then I will say a few things about the complexity of producing and reproducing experiments in general, followed by a section on the problems of the specific type of experiments of which this one is a specimen: priming studies, mostly found in the subdiscipline of social psychology and since almost a decade the subject of a vigorous debate among methodologists, philosophers of science, priming researchers, in scientific journals, but also in newspapers, magazines, blogs and on Twitter. I will end with assessing the possibilities and the limits of doing experiments in the human sciences: what can we learn from experiments on alcohol cues if we want to tackle physical, mental and social harm, attributed to the consumption of alcohol?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Serendipity in Scientific Research Three Persistent Myths about Open Science The Music Must Play On: The Music Therapy Sessions that Should not Have Stopped Medical Expert Endorsement Fails to Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy in U.K. Residents A Manifesto for Rewarding and Recognizing Team Infrastructure Roles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1