> It's ironically sad, in fact, because psychologists and behavioral scientists are the ones exposing the replication crisis and doing the most to try to address the problem.
On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem by a Nobel Prizewinner's now-famous "train wreck looming" open letter[1]. They certainly wouldn't have gone there without being pushed.
> Arguing that psychology will give way to the neurosciences is akin to arguing that nothing in the computer sciences is a legitimate topic of study unless it involves bare metal issues.
Yes, unless the computer science theories under study are falsifiable and based on empirical evidence, in which case they constitute science as science is defined. That's what distinguishes computer science from psychology, or, for that matter, science from psychology.
> The link you provide amounts to nothing more than ignorant intellectual bigotry and killing the messenger.
I include this to show the essence and basic character of your argument.
I hesitate to even respond to someone who's possibly just a highly energetic troll, but come on dude. The reason Kahneman wrote about psych is that it's the field he works in. He's not going to see these symptoms in ecological or environmental sciences because he doesn't read those papers, preside over those theses, vie for those grants, etc.
> On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem
It was raised by a professor of psychology, somebody IN THE COMMUNITY, and is being addressed, better than elsewhere. Your spin is absurd. A community takes some monumentally difficult steps to right itself in the face of bizarre pressures (mainly a broken funding model) and you take it as more evidence that they're inherently dishonest.
The article you link here seems to go almost completely against your premise, by the way.
If your goal is to make it obvious that some people have an absurd bias against the 'soft sciences', or to reinforce the stereotype of 'STEMlord' on HN, you're doing marvelously. Anything else and it's a flop.
On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressing the replication problem by a Nobel Prizewinner's now-famous "train wreck looming" open letter[1]. They certainly wouldn't have gone there without being pushed.
> Arguing that psychology will give way to the neurosciences is akin to arguing that nothing in the computer sciences is a legitimate topic of study unless it involves bare metal issues.
Yes, unless the computer science theories under study are falsifiable and based on empirical evidence, in which case they constitute science as science is defined. That's what distinguishes computer science from psychology, or, for that matter, science from psychology.
> The link you provide amounts to nothing more than ignorant intellectual bigotry and killing the messenger.
I include this to show the essence and basic character of your argument.
1. http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/daniel-kahneman-se...