You're correct in assuming that it's difficult to extract correct conclusions from a psychology experiment, just like with any other science. Moreso with psychology than other fields though because humans are complex beings.
But logically speaking, how do you make psychology beneficial to society without making a few assumptions? Math, for instance, is nothing but a set of rules built on top of assumptions. Yes, we can point out all the potential edge-cases all day. But that won't put our society any closer to understanding the human psyche than when we started.
Of course as an alternative, you could just accept the team's conclusions: "Acts of cleanliness have not only the potential to shift our moral pendulum to a more virtuous self, but also license harsher moral judgment of others." To me, that seems like a valid conclusion to draw based on the research. Would you not agree?
>You're correct in assuming that it's difficult to extract correct conclusions from a psychology experiment, just like with any other science.
In psychology it is much much more difficult to tease out "correct" conclusions than in, for example, physics. This is a result of 1) the complicated nature of human behavior, which is not subject to (in comparison) simple mathematical formula; and 2) the unethical nature of trying to measure the effects of bizarre environments on children in order to analyze development.
This is what you said right afterwards, of course.
But the fuzzy sciences face challenges that naturally make them less rigorous in the scope of their conclusions.
Math, for instance, is nothing but a set of rules built on top of assumptions.
There's question logicians argue about quite a bit. I would side with folks who view math as nothing but a system for analyzing abstract rule system but which doesn't care at all whether the rules themselves are true or false.
In this sense, math isn't dependent on any assumptions besides the existence of some sort of abstract machine. I know Kurt Godel disagreed with this but it's still complete consistent interpretation of math.
In anycase, this is a bit different from social science, which has to make assumptions every step of the way (not necessary bad but definitely different).
I am not against engaging in social science. But I am against ignoring the tenuousness of social science's conclusion. Don't confuse "the best we can do" with correct.
The article's conclusion is plausible but far from "established".
But logically speaking, how do you make psychology beneficial to society without making a few assumptions? Math, for instance, is nothing but a set of rules built on top of assumptions. Yes, we can point out all the potential edge-cases all day. But that won't put our society any closer to understanding the human psyche than when we started.
Of course as an alternative, you could just accept the team's conclusions: "Acts of cleanliness have not only the potential to shift our moral pendulum to a more virtuous self, but also license harsher moral judgment of others." To me, that seems like a valid conclusion to draw based on the research. Would you not agree?