[algesten]

I would say objective reality is dubious, and wonder what claims do "survive testing"?

On the one hand, human behaviour, culture and influences is extremely fragmented, to the point where I wonder what is it we're trying to model? The subject we're trying to predict is part of this culture and influences, and probably shifting so fast it's questionable we can, with accuracy, predict much.

On the other hand we have the interpretor, the constructor of the study, who also is colored by culture and influences to the point where we must ask why is a certain model being constructed?What is predicted and why? How are people's actions interpreted to fit that model?

[VodkaHaze]

See I'm fine with all of what you just said. The problem comes at the next step, "Testable claims are dubious so XYZ."

Being skeptical is healthy. Inferring from your skepticism is not. Inferring leads to refusing vaccines, embracing homeopathic medicine, or asserting that a $15 federal minimum wage will have no disemployment effects in rural US counties.

[algesten]

No I would never make that leap. I believe social sciences in particular have suffered from over simplifying human behaviour to reduce it down to something that appears testable and that has resulted in silly predictions/claims.

But medical trials is a whole other story. Here you can very clearly construct a double blind to test the efficacy of a medicine.