> You mention "social sciences" as a bad thing, Where did I say that? I said "you can't get away from social agenda when it comes to social science research, b

> You mention "social sciences" as a bad thing, Where did I say that? I said "you can't get away from social agenda when it comes to social science research, but all the real valuable social science research results come from genuine curiosity whereas a lot of bad research results come from a clear goal to convey their existing message" > You disregard evidence because it "feels" wrong to you Yes you got it exactly right. It feels wrong to me. And it's presented in a way that I don't like. That's it. I don't care how many peer reviews it received. This research WILL be used by lobbyists and viral media to get traffic to their websites, and the authors know it. I didn't say this was not science. But it's science optimized for fulfilling an agenda. You talk like you know EXACTLY what science is, but at the end of the day the term "science" is a word humans invented. Which means people will have different interpretations. We can't really reach an agreement here just like how people from different religion can't come to an agreement about their Gods. So don't try to feed me your version of science and tell me that's the "real" science. My only point was that I do not like what this piece of "science research" will be used for. You can argue with me on that point if you really think there is no agenda behind this research. Because that's the only point I'm trying to make.