>Like it or not, SPSS made science much easier. No - it didn’t. Science isn’t running stats tools. It’s knowing what tools to use and using them properly so th

>Like it or not, SPSS made science much easier. No - it didn’t. Science isn’t running stats tools. It’s knowing what tools to use and using them properly so that you get valid answers. If you haven’t been paying attention, the social sciences have been plagued by an epidemic of failures of reproducibility - see: https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... for reference. Only 39% of studies were found to be replicable and much of the blame falls to poor methods and techniques like p-hacking. > And we should work in that direction. Yes, we should - but dumbing down interfaces in ways that don’t actually provide good guardrails/handholding to help with proper application is not making good science easier. > Not creating more complex tools for no reason. Nowhere have I or others suggested that. But a tool that makes it simple to get an answer is not the same as one that makes it simple to get a correct and valid answer. Science is a means to an end in many cases. Medicine, for example, is about better human lives. Shoddy research methods could do anything from giving false hope to actually endangering lives.