4 ms·

Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field? Your point is certainly valid, but just because there are some poorly reasoned pa

• lutusp 14y ago
  > ... just because there are some poorly reasoned papers in psychology it does not follow that all psychological research is quackery. Your words, not mine. Psychologists aren't quacks, they're perfectly respectable pseudoscientists, and there is plenty of research in the field, some of it first-rate. But no amount of research can turn a field into a science unless the research leads to the establishment of theoretical principles. This is something psychologists famously avoid. Once psychologists start shaping and testing theories, and agreeing on basic principles, it is then that they will have crossed the threshold of science. Once they move beyond description to explanation, then they will have crossed the threshold of science. Once psychologists rely on scientific evidence instead of votes ... All the conditions that were added to, and removed from, the new DSM-V, were decided -- not by evidence -- but by a majority vote. Scientists let evidence rule. Psychologists let committees rule. Imagine if real scientists behaved like psychologists: "Is there life on Mars? Rockets are expensive -- let's vote!" > Could you address this paper specifically instead of tarring the entire field? I didn't tar the entire field. The Stapel Affair investigators tarred the entire field. I merely quoted their reluctant conclusion. More on this topic: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science