It's a great article which unfortunately makes it sound like the problems are restricted to social science. That isn't the case, similar problems crop up in man

It's a great article which unfortunately makes it sound like the problems are restricted to social science. That isn't the case, similar problems crop up in many other fields (or perhaps you could argue the scope of social science is wider than appreciated). A good example of a field with the same problems is epidemiology. I wrote a brief article with many examples a couple of years ago [1]. Unfalsifiable claims, objectively false claims, non-replicable work, citations that were invalid in various ways (e.g. citing a paper in support of a claim which didn't actually support the claim), and most surprisingly, a lot of circular logic. This field seems to routinely lose track of what comes from assumptions vs simulations vs reality. Papers would make claims that sounded like factual statements about observed data, but when the citation was checked the number would turn out to be a simulation output or even an arbitrary assumption used as simulation input. Validation had gone AWOL long ago with the substitutes being unscientific, e.g. claiming a model was validated because it roughly matched the output of other models. You could argue that epidemiology is actually a social science rather than a hard science. Maybe the distinction isn't interesting though. [1] https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf