The decline effect basically suggests that a set of data may contain certain patterns and trends but over time, after series of observation, the data will regress to the mean and show results closer to the reality. After listening to the radio, I was pretty convinced but I really didn't know what to think. Why do these data change over time? Is replication really the problem? If all our well-established, multiply confirmed findings start to look increasingly uncertain, where does that leave us? It's as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. "The most likely explanation for the decline is an obvious one: regression to the mean. As the experiment is repeated, that is, an early statistical fluke gets canceled out... And yet Schooler has noticed that many of the data sets that end up declining seem statistically solid--that is, they contain enough data that any regression to the mean shouldn't be dramatic. "These are the results that pass all the tests," he says. "The odds of them being random are typically quite remote, like one in a million. This means that the decline effect should almost never happen. But it happens all the time!..." (Lehrer) If these results aren't random, why does the data change over time? Is it then, the act of observation that changes reality itself then? The podcast gave an example that really stood out to me, placing your hand on your leg, you feel it but as you leave it there, it becomes less and less noticeable, somehow there may be some kind of habituation that comes into the middle of this all. The podcast then goes on to say that in this sense, we can never know what is absolutely set in stone and even the notion that the laws of reality are unchangeable may be changed, because, it's just a reasonable assumption that we, as humans, make. In this sense, you can never know what's for sure, and what's not, truth then, would be based on "the observer’s position, habits, biases, information whatever." But some things in life seem to be constant, like Newton's law. Maybe the decline effect only happens in places where a lot of variables are at stake, most evidently, science. The real question in this study is: how do we know that the facts that were – are here today will be there tomorrow?
In numerous scientific studies a general declining trend has been noticed, seemingly without reason. For example, a study might find that in general animals prefer mates with symmetrical features, with a margin of around 30%. As time goes on and this study is reproduced, however, it might be found that that margin drops lower and lower, until the effect has eventually regressed to insignificance. Many causes for this effect have been hypothesized and examined, but no clear cause has been found. This state is made even more perplexing by the fact that this effect can be observed across multiple disciplines.
“Does the decline effect decline?” This poses an issue about whether everything that has been recorded is valid or whether everything had been an illusion that results from experimenters’ bias. In psychology experimenters’ bias is when experimenters see results in their studies that correspond to their theses or what they wish the answer to their experiment would be. This also raises questions about the validity of the scientific method. Society is based on science as humans like to believe that they know facts. However, there is no way to know whether or not facts are really true as facts are merely accumulation of things perceived by individuals deemed as being true. There is no way that scientists will be able to test everything relative to their theory to confirm the theory. In this case, scientific laws are also deemed as invalid as the word “law” implies that it is always to be followed. These laws are really just theories that have been tested and verified over and over again, but scientists have no way to observe everything. It is impossible, therefore, to form a valid scientific law.
No comments:
Post a Comment