Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
You're just repeating this extremely faulty argument "some research has been found invalid therefore all research is invalid".
No, it's a probabilistic argument: "research in this field, even research previously considered rock solid, has on numerous occasions later been found to be completely invalid, therefore it is inadvisable to place a large degree of confidence in research results in the field."
I don't think many people will argue that psychology has a very good track record. Up until just 30 years ago, psychologists and psychiatrists nearly uniformly agreed that homosexuality was, scientifically speaking, a mental illness, a finding they finally retracted only after people _outside_ the field attacked them continuously over a period of many years. Anti-depressant studies have a similarly suspicious history. In general, I'd be wary of any study coming out of that area, unless it's been rigorously vetted by people outside the field.
But more importantly, if you dismiss the value of published research, how do you propose we carry on an intelligent discussion? What arguments can I possibly use that you'll accept as valid?
Oh, some published research is more reliable and relevant. I'd still take it with a grain of salt, but I'd be more interested in the large body of economics literature on how incentive payments (such as bonuses) impact employee performance. As far as I know, it's currently a disputed topic, with some studies claiming to show positive impact, some studies claiming to show negative impact, and some studies claiming to show no measurable impact. There's also some relevant literature on the effects of paid labor on the availability and quality of volunteer labor.
-Mark