http://webjournal.nerdfiles.net/2012/04/03/this/ http://webjournal.nerdfiles.net/2012/04/03/this/ Notice the date. That was the date. What is interesting is t

http://webjournal.nerdfiles.net/2012/04/03/this/ http://webjournal.nerdfiles.net/2012/04/03/this/ Notice the date. That was the date. What is interesting is that they are engaging in an activity that wishes to avoid reproducibility. They allow "facts" and "ideas" to swap. Articles like http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5828 http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5828 exist. There's the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. All that theorizing needs to record facts. To do that, we need to be able to follow what the hell is going on without blatant wankery like with Anthony Crick or early John Searle's "foot in the mind" rubbish or Dennett's everything's-a-scientist metaphysics. Philosophers got the descriptivist bug with Experimental Philosophy. Linguistics has always been largely descriptivist. Now psychology is to do the same. Who cares that they may have false theories, let's see if they've described anything. As Fraiser obviously demonstrates, psychologists have had their Golden Age. Psychology needs management.