12 ms·

>contemporary science I suspect you already know this, but it bears repetition, if only because it keeps us optimistic: science is a process. Even nutritiona

• TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I agree - but sadly, the key word here is "eventually". It's little of a consolation if you'd like to use some new knowledge today. So as it stands now, I classify every new and contemporary (younger than 10 years) study in psychology, sociology and nutrition as "not science" and "quackery" by default, until proven otherwise. I also assume that any science news reporting in any field is an outright lie with an agenda. Rarely do I see a counterexample. Seriously, science reporting does way more harm than bad research itself.
  • omginternets 11y ago
    > psychology I'd encourage you to be careful in dismissing the entirety of experimental psychology (full disclosure: I'm a cognitive neuroscientist, which is what a psychologist calls himself when he wants to distance himself from social psych). The reproduction crisis doesn't touch all fields of psych in equivalent ways. When you reject the field as a whole, you're also rejecting stuff like this: http://cavlab.net/?lang=en http://cavlab.net/?lang=en