An article from the NY Times:
“The past several years have been bruising ones for the credibility of the social sciences. A star social psychologist was caught fabricating data, leading to more than 50 retracted papers. A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized. The journal Science pulled a political science paper on the effect of gay canvassers on voters’ behavior because of concerns about faked data.
Now, a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested.
Only 35 of 100 studies that the Reproducibility Project looked at held up fully to scrutiny….The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory.”
Most “social science” is not science at all. It’s nothing more than science-flavored fiction concocted by people who look and talk like scientists, but are merely mimics with agendas. Its been known for at least two decades that 30-40% of the hard science papers could not be replicated. It is thus no surprise that 60% of the psychology findings (soft sciences) cannot be replicated at all. The peer review system is corrupt and the entire government-funded R&D milieu is similarly corrupt.
The problem with most modern “sciences” (social science, political science, etc. – there’s a reason they have to include “science” in their name when physics or biology don’t) is that it skips observation, goes right to making a theory, and then only accepts evidence that supports that theory. Scientists have become the new corrupt clergy. Progressivism married “scientific management” of society with the iron fist of the state in order to yield Heaven on Earth (the obverse of the coin showing Marx’s “new man”). This made scientists into clergy a long time ago. Corruption followed on the heels of power.
There will be many who are angered by this; many who object to the miasma of deception being shown for what it is because it upends their tidy little view of the world. But if sanity is a relentless effort to perceive the world as it really is and align ones actions accordingly, is it not of vast explanatory value to recognize that the people in charge of defining the relevant facts of reality were instead jotting down their own delusions? In light of these revelations, I wonder how many in today’s emotion-centric world will be able to cling to the notion that feelings trump logical conclusions?