> You ignore the fact that scientific fraud exists in other sciences It's not the topic under discussion, but scientific fraud certainly exists among scientist

> You ignore the fact that scientific fraud exists in other sciences It's not the topic under discussion, but scientific fraud certainly exists among scientists, with one important difference -- real scientists are exposed by comparing their work, their evidence, to reality. Stapel was exposed by comparing his words to his work -- work often not even conducted. There was never any serious prospect of comparing Stapel's work to reality, because his work didn't try to address reality -- that's science's purview. In science, reliant on physical evidence, how you describe the evidence shouldn't matter, the evidence should speak for itself. Reliable evidence should bring different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion. In psychology, the reason there's no consensus on the meaning of evidence is because the evidence is extremely poor, freeing different psychologists to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. > this article talks about extending the use of this tool to different sciences. Yes, that's true, they do talk about it. But until they actually try to apply it, it's not a legitimate topic of discussion. You haven't asked an obvious question -- where are the falsifiable psychological theories, theories that can be proven false in practical tests, but that resist falsification? Where are the time-tested theories that would make psychology one field, like physics or biology, and that would justify clinical practice?