3 ms·

> also disqualifies clinical, educational and social psychology. Yes. We've been seeing the reproducibility crisis in these fields unfold for several years no

• throwaway894345 6y ago
  This is certainly a valid perspective, and I feel the same way about many fields and I might also feel that way about this field if I were better acquainted. If that's her position, it wasn't presented very clearly--I certainly thought she was talking about addressing a fundamental issue with the theory/framework, both because of her own words ("I wanted to carefully try to articulate what seems to be a fatal problem with the framework and to put it out there.") and because of Gizmodo's editorializing. If your interpretation were correct, it would have been far more clear if the article would have stated up front that the philosopher believes there are remediable issues of methodology and rigor in the field as evidenced by X, Y, and Z; here's why you should care, and here's what can be done. Instead, it seems too try to conflate (not even well-supported) claims of lacking rigor with fundamental problems, or at least that's my perception.
  • slowmovintarget 6y ago
    Yes, the article is trying to pitch this as a "Gotcha" piece and taking sides with the interviewee, as opposed to what's actually going on: a philosopher doing her job.