4 ms·
Not that it's not interesting, and perhaps there's even a kernel of truth to it -- who ever thought of psychology as an exact science? -- but note that this web
by the_biot 5y ago
Not that it's not interesting, and perhaps there's even a kernel of truth to it -- who ever thought of psychology as an exact science? -- but note that this website, madinamerica.com, is dedicated to fighting psychiatry in all its forms. They very much cherry-pick studies like this to report on; don't expect a study proving the opposite would show up there.
When ingesting news, even if you're willing to accept outlying or extreme points of view into your mind, you should at least be aware of the agenda of the news source.
- prepend 5y agoI don’t think the idea is psychology is, or should be, and exact science. But failing to replicate for 60% isn’t an issue of being exact or imprecise, it’s just bad or wrong or fraudulent. I don’t the counter to cited studies showing problems is criticizing the web site presenting them, but making substantial claims to refute. Or ideas for improving. Some of the ideas called out- preregistration, open data, more systematic reviews- are good and should be embraced by psychologists who want to have a reputable science. Not an exact science.
- ethanbond 5y agoPsychology bears the brunt of the criticism for lack of reproducibility, but here’s the secret: the “hard” sciences aren’t much better. The claim would be they’re irreproducible for other reasons than psychology studies are, but how could we possibly know?