Well, all sciences have this issue : see Kuhn, Feyerabend... https://samzdat.com/2018/05/19/science-under-high-modernism/ https://samzdat.com/2018/05/19/scienc

Well, all sciences have this issue : see Kuhn, Feyerabend... https://samzdat.com/2018/05/19/science-under-high-modernism/ https://samzdat.com/2018/05/19/science-under-high-modernism/ It would be kind of ironic if psychologists were more susceptible to the "Pop-Baconian" simplification of science ? And damning if what I've heard about psychology going through multiple paradigms during the 20th century alone is true. But then, indeed, also understandable, due to the "softness" and "paradigmlessness" of the subject matter, as Kuhn had pointedout the later back then ? It's still sad how we now have detailed theories and histories of science, but in practice scientists show no interest in trying to learn from them, nor the mistakes of their predecessors? But then maybe that would have too high of a cost. (Consider all those successful projects where the founders later say : "we didn't knew what we were getting into / that this was considered impossible".) Bonus : Wiseman & Schlitz’s attempts to do an adversarial super-controlled parapsychological experiment : ( IV. ) https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...