It's in a replication crisis because pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ). It's why Richard Feynmann associated social science with pseudoscience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
Because real science destroyed the credibility of religion and religion in much of the world is no longer a credible social control tool, the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Whereas religion controlled everything from economics, schooling, family, culture, society, law, etc, now they all fall under the pseudoscience/religion called social "science".
---------------------------------------------
Reply to ziddoap.
Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested.
I consider social science to be a pseudoscience for the same reason richard feynmann did. Did you bother watching what he had to say?
Social "science" is a humanities. It belongs in the category with philosophy, ethics, literature, religion, etc.
Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad.
I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
Because real science destroyed the credibility of religion and religion in much of the world is no longer a credible social control tool, the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Whereas religion controlled everything from economics, schooling, family, culture, society, law, etc, now they all fall under the pseudoscience/religion called social "science".
---------------------------------------------
Reply to ziddoap.
Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested.
I consider social science to be a pseudoscience for the same reason richard feynmann did. Did you bother watching what he had to say?
Social "science" is a humanities. It belongs in the category with philosophy, ethics, literature, religion, etc.
Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad.
I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science.