Yes, it is shoddy science or possibly not science at all. Testing an assertion using known measures that have been shown to not test what you want to test does not add to the scientific knowledge and instead subtract by adding noise.
Building upon tests that has not held up to scrutiny without having a good argument for why it is different this time violates how science explores and builds knowledge. Science is a technique that produce a network of knowledge [1], where the core nodes are viewed as facts because they have successfully held up to scrutiny by other pieces of knowledge and has worked as a foundation for other pieces of knowledge.
In science pieces of knowledge that builds upon claims that are shown to be invalid, such as the IAT test, are viewed as inheriting the problems of the knowledge it builds upon.
Comments
Yes, it is shoddy science or possibly not science at all. Testing an assertion using known measures that have been shown to not test what you want to test does not add to the scientific knowledge and instead subtract by adding noise.
Building upon tests that has not held up to scrutiny without having a good argument for why it is different this time violates how science explores and builds knowledge. Science is a technique that produce a network of knowledge [1], where the core nodes are viewed as facts because they have successfully held up to scrutiny by other pieces of knowledge and has worked as a foundation for other pieces of knowledge.
In science pieces of knowledge that builds upon claims that are shown to be invalid, such as the IAT test, are viewed as inheriting the problems of the knowledge it builds upon.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxdBRKmPhe4&feature=youtu.be...