HN gets a very biased view of psychology and other social sciences. All the articles talk about failures - a confirmation bias, a sort of media crusade that man

HN gets a very biased view of psychology and other social sciences. All the articles talk about failures - a confirmation bias, a sort of media crusade that many on HN seem to participate in. It also serves the cause of those who want to tear down any institution in the way of the uber-capitalists (including all of social sciences, journalism, and anything that might provide an alternative or critical narrative), and any institution that doesn't serve them directly - college, of course, is now only good for training people to make more money for the uber-capitalists. What good is philosophy or psychology? Psychology also has many successes - including some incredible ones for people I know, whose lives have been changed. It can provide great insight into the world. An easy target is that social science results are not as reliable as natural science results, but that's not apples-to-apples at all: Natural sciences' domain of problems is those that can be solved using the scientific method; if you can't gather objective, falsifiable, reproducible, etc. data, you don't do it. Social sciences' domain of problems is those that need to be solved, no matter what: People are sick; we must come up with the best solution we can, using the scientific method as far as possible. What social sciences study - humanity - is far more challenging than, for example, fluid movement. There is not always objective, falsifiable, reproducible, etc. data to be had, so you do the best you can and, using your gathered data and expertise, provide the best known solution.