Evaluation of Kessler’s Argument

When reading Kessler’s article, I had many frustrations with a lot of aspects of his argument. Kessler makes the argument that studies are inherently unreliable. I do not disagree with this argument but I think the way he argues this concept sends a message that instills an inaccurate perception of what should be valued in research.

The first problem with his argument is that he only uses social psychology as the basis for why studies are inherently unreliable. This does not account for plenty of other studies in fields that would not entail nearly as much variation and unreliability. Psychology, although considered a science, is still classified as liberal arts and a social science and while social sciences are not necessarily less real than hard sciences, the assertions and arguments are a lot more inconclusive and unreliable in social sciences.

The second problem with his argument is that he ignores the idea that theory and logic also have biases. Kessler’s argument for why studies are bad predicates on the idea that there is inherent bias within individuals. I agree with this completely. However, why single out studies? Why would this bias not transfer to theory or logic? I think that Kessler’s focus on studies ignores the idea that biases affect other types of intellectual contribution.

The third main problem with his argument is that he does not advocate for making studies more accurate in the intellectual community. Because bias is inherent, we will never achieve perfection. But even if we cannot achieve perfection or total accuracy, I do not see why we should not try to be more accurate. I know he does not argue against this but if someone is arguing that all studies are flawed, I would not see it as contributive or constructive if they do not propose any type of solution or method of improvement. At the very least, they should encourage improvement.

Ultimately, I believe that all studies are flawed. However, I think all logic and all rationality is flawed due to bias and imperfection. I advocate for the questioning of methodology in studies and I also advocate for the questioning of all logic and rationality.