7
Should "soft science" be considered real science? (lemmychan.org)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

spoilerPersonally? No, absolutely not. There should be no differentiating between what can be measured, and what cannot.

I can't help but look at the reproducibility issue in "Psychology" and notice, what did they do about it? Nothing. It just exists. It's not real science.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

If psychology was held to scientific rigor with controls, statistical power and proper statistical analysis, none of it would get published.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •