> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve.
> Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.”
> The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological terrorism.”
If these are attitudes typical of psychology, then I cannot say I consider psychology to be a proper social science. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how knowledge is created through the scientific process if the verification step is considered to be offensive or taboo. That anyone in the field of psychology would even be comfortable publically espousing a non-scientific worldview like that means that psychologists are not being properly educated in the scientific method and should not be in the business of producing research since they do not have a mature understanding of what "scientific" implies.
> Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.”
> The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological terrorism.”
If these are attitudes typical of psychology, then I cannot say I consider psychology to be a proper social science. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how knowledge is created through the scientific process if the verification step is considered to be offensive or taboo. That anyone in the field of psychology would even be comfortable publically espousing a non-scientific worldview like that means that psychologists are not being properly educated in the scientific method and should not be in the business of producing research since they do not have a mature understanding of what "scientific" implies.