[pizlonator]

I don't consider a human subjects study to be "hard evidence".

So, we can safely disregard these papers. They got exactly the result that they sought out to get, and the papers were published because they confirmed the preexisting groupthink.

[rowanG077]

Interesting, so you consider the entire scientific field of medicine to work without hard evidence?

[pizlonator]

You mean psychology? There’s no hard evidence there. The papers you’re citing are using human subjects in that sort of way. It’s pseudoscience at best

Medicine that involves testing human subject response to treatments is very different from the papers you’re citing and does involve falsifiable theses (usually, definitely not always).

[rowanG077]

I didn't link any studies. I'm not the person you originally replied to. I was trying to engage in your point that studies involving human subjects cannot contain hard evidence. And no I wasn't referring to psychology in my comment.

[pizlonator]

Then you’re changing context for no reason.

My point about human subjects is in the context of the linked studies.

I’m not super interested in further debating human subjects in science generally