I think that this needs to be understood in the context of the "replicability crisis" which is particularly critical in the field of psychology. The real questi

I think that this needs to be understood in the context of the "replicability crisis" which is particularly critical in the field of psychology. The real question is what other bogus science is being taught to psychology students today. Psychology has always played in multiple ponds. Expirement based social science. Explicitly unscientific^ theory (eg Freud). Quite a lot in the practice/medical aspects. A lot of philosophical approaches. Overall, I think this has added up to a result where when people in the field say "we know X to be true," it's hard to know what they mean, nevermind if they're correct. Do they mean it in the sense that a literary critic means something, or the way a chemist means something. For example: Atlas Shrugged & Animal Farm are both works of fiction and of political "science". This is fine in the frame of what political science is, a non scientific field. No one since Marx has really claimed otherwise. When Marx claimed his theories to be scientific, the discussion that followed actually resulted in very important pieces of modern epistemology: what is science. The critics of Marx were also critics of Freud and the criticism was identical. Psychology though.. it has remained in a sort of no man's land. I know that I at least have really lost confidence in psychology, as an academic field. Practice/therapy is a completely different story. I think there's been a lot of advancement in therapy. I can't help but wonder though, how much it is hindered by bogus "science." ^in the Karl Popper sense