> You've made a lot of generalizations here that amount to, "social scientists aren't as rigorous as other areas of science, therefore we should only believe studies that disagree with their results".
I think it’s more “ignore them completely.” It brings “science” into disrepute to let social science associate with the other sciences.
> I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful.
There is no baby!
> People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing.
Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today.
I think it’s more “ignore them completely.” It brings “science” into disrepute to let social science associate with the other sciences.
> I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful.
There is no baby!
> People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing.
Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today.