> something gets studied because it exists That's an interesting way to look at it > Replicate-ability is essentially zero, and everything is just based on ju

> something gets studied because it exists That's an interesting way to look at it > Replicate-ability is essentially zero, and everything is just based on judgement of famous characters. That doesn't fit what we see even in the linked article and the older story about psychology replication: All these experiments had methods that could be repeated (that's what the replication project people did), the effects of almost all the experiments were replicated, and for about half the research the effects were as strong as before. That's a long way from methods that are "just ... judgement of famous character" and "essentially zero" replication. > quite a few of these sciences (social sciences, political sciences, English) are up-front biased. They start from the point that they want to find/push X What is that based on? Is there someone in those fields that has written about it? Have you done any work in them? Having some minor, intimate familiarity with these fields, though from an outside perspective, I don't agree. Political science, for example, aims to identify political phenomena and how they function. Every experiment in any science starts with a hypothesis, the theory the experimenter sets out to prove, and generally experimenters have a career based on promoting a certain model or idea. That is true of mathematicians and chemists too. Also, I wouldn't group English, one of the humanities, with the social sciences.