[tagrun]

> but it is not the only way to produce knowledge that is reliable.

Yeah, as evidenced by

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-f...

Indeed! Just look at the puny and half-wrong progress made in physics and compare it to the enormous progress made in astrology and psychology which transformed our lives and understanding of everything!

I mean, they've been at it for hundreds of years, and they still haven't realized that "it is not the only way to produce knowledge that is reliable" (never mind what "reliable" means, who cares about such details anyway). Wish they were also blessed with magic ball.

And hey! They've been sucking our tax money like vampires for so many years!

[James001]

The replication crisis isn't only within the soft sciences, but nice try.

According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists, 70% of them failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments (50% failed to reproduce their own experiment). These numbers differ among disciplines:

chemistry: 90% (60%), biology: 80% (60%), physics and engineering: 70% (50%), medicine: 70% (60%), Earth and environment science: 60% (40%).

But it's just the social sciences right? Thank god we have the scientific method! Otherwise we'd be lost! Heaven forbid

[tagrun]

Let me guess, you got those "scientific" results from the Scientific Journal of Social Academics, using that "other method that reproduces reliable knowledge", so this must be correct! And it can't have anything to do with the pressure they're feeling now that someone is looking at their work with some scrutiny, because they've been the gate keepers of "reliable knowledge" all along.

And I'm pretty sure those 1500 scientists represent the scientist all over the world from all countries and fields, and those studies must be from the shady physics journals such as Nature and Phys Rev series and not crap journals no real physicist even read. If only they could be like the major psychology journals http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10...

You were funny when you tried to justify how scientific psychology was, by using+not using scientific method at will. You sound downright idiotic the moment you tried to imply that physics is a sham (which used to be the de facto science long before any of your "sciences" even appeared).

Anyway, go play with yourself. I've got better things to do. Like actual science. Rumble all you want. I'm done with you.

[vacri]

Being a sore loser doesn't make for robust science, nor does snide ad-hominems.

[James001]

I'm sorry if I've angered you by showing you that the scientific method doesn't produce perfect science, just like the methods of science that psychology use doesn't produce perfect science either. I'm not rumbling, just giving words of advice that hopefully you'll heed if you actually want to be a scientist and not just a naive lab rat. To each their own though, you just perfectly demonstrated the arrogant attitude that is ruining science today. Why read OP's article when we have you as all the proof we need?

[patall]

There is a fundamental difference between "half the studies are wrong" and "half of the people have encountered false results (at anytime in their life)". I agree that even "hard" sciences often claim dubious results but a psychology study with 20 (or often even less) participants from a not even remotely representative background that study a plethora of social behaviors is indeed a whole different level of unscientific.