[spamizbad]

> pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory )

By this standard, neither is most preclinical cancer research as so few of them replicate (11% - source: https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a). Even social science puts up better numbers than that (~60%)

[germanlee]

There is a difference between bad science and "not being a science" ( aka pseudoscience ).

The difference is that in one you can formulate replicable science. In the other, by its nature, you can't. Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society.

There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. So on and so forth. Much of it is pretty much a "religious" endeavor. Pretty much those with power decide and social "science" is used to justify whereas in the past religion was the justification.

[SolaceQuantum]

"... Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society..."

Society isn't... natural?

"There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. "

I wasn't aware that social science even attempted to answer these questions? Like most sciences, and this study, it attempts to study phenomenon as they occur. In this case this meta-study was trying to see if the backfire effect actually exists... which isn't making any moral or societal debate or opinion, just trying to verify a phenomenon existing. Which sounds pretty scientific to me?

[CriticalCathed]

Studying behavior is not equivalent to studying, say, astrophysics.

It is of course "natural" in the same sense that everything is natural, but the lack of the ability to ground research in empirical evidence means that the fields of economics, social science, psychology, and especially evolutionary psychology etc. are not actually engaging in science.

The form, structure, tendencies, or beliefs of a human culture are not at all analoglous to say studying a distant and ancient star by observing its emission spectrum or investigating the nature of reality by investigating subatomic particle interactions. This fundamental difference means that these fields will never be as dependable as true science; to be clear that doesn't mean they're useless, only that they're not science.