[guerrilla]

"Psychology is not a natural science." I used to think this and to a certain extent I still do but the fact is that the feild has changed and become much more reproducible as time passes and it matures.

More importantly though this article conflates humanities with social sciences pretty badly. This is quite insulting to sociology and even more so to economics and anthropology. Physical antrho is pretty serious science.

There are limitations to social sciences but those are not the same limitations of literary criticism.

[neonate]

Psychology hasn't simply become more reproducible. It has been gutted by a reproducibility crisis and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be.

[0d9eooo]

The reproducibility crisis extends far beyond psychology. Psychologists are the messengers, just like they were with meta-analysis in the 60s and 70s.

Similar problems have been demonstrated in a host of fields, mostly the biomedical sciences. To take one prominent example, HN has been plastered with articles about COVID studies of dubious quality.

[neonate]

I agree.

[andreilys]

Has it become more reproducible? From what I've read we've only now come to terms with the fact that so much of the research is not reproducible and largely debunked (even land-mark studies like the Milgram experiments have started to be put into question)