about the Replication Crisis
It's less vague than sociology
Even psychologycels dunk on sociologycels 
Psychology is actually an extremely rigorous science, it's usually often more specific and rigorous than other fields of research because we're measuring intangible things such as personality traits and feelings and our subjects are real people. This means we have to consistently go above and beyond to prove things and take into consideration ethics at every step in the study design process.
"Rigorous" is a charitable term when replicability rates in social psychology are roughly 20-30% and in cognitive psychology are approach 50%
I also question the premise whether there is some more methodological rigor because of studying intangible things. That may be the case for those who study measurement and psychometrics, like personality psychologists. But there are an astounding number of psychology papers using unreliable and non valid measures to study intangible constructs which is part of the replicability crisis: the field is not more rigorous by virtue of studying something complex if it often doesn't do it well and many don't care about valid measurement
I'm very skeptical that this is a psychology problem, rather than a "science is hard" problem. To my knowledge very few fields have undertaken reproducibility studies to the extent that psychology has (but if I'm mistaken very happy to be proven otherwise!). So just because replication rates look bad for psychology doesn't mean it is less rigorous than other sciences.
Once example I'm aware of: A replicability project for cancer biology replicated 40% of the original effects https://www.cos.io/rpcb
!ifrickinglovescience !physics !biology how's the Replication Crisis affecting you guys?
The replication "crisis" is part of the nature of statistical testing. Read "the nature of p." All branches of science have a replication "crisis" and medicine was once of the first to angst over it, not psych.
Do you have an author or link for "the nature of p"?
Not off the top of my head, but this touches on the same issues. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-018-0421-4
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/opinion/psychology-is-not-in-crisis.html
The basic idea is that a failure to reproduce doesn't mean the theory is wrong, and reproduction doesn't mean it is right. It just changes our perception of the strength of the effect and should motivate us to consider the likelihood that the effect is influenced by unexplored boundary conditions or moderators. We have learned so much and are able to do so many more things these days. Seems odd to say the field is in a crisis. It is like watching a bmw owner drive his car to the junk yard because the engine's timing is off and demand they crush it into a cube.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!ifrickinglovescience please fact check
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He's not denying the value of reproducibility, he's just saying that a single instance of reproduction succeeding or failing is not a guarantee. But he's misapplied that argument to this scenario because you don't need a guarantee when you're talking about the rate of reproducibility across multiple findings.
But anyway psychology is still ahead of sociology on this because you have one field where 40% of stuff reproduces and another field where maybe 10% of stuff reproduces and nobody even agrees on what constitutes a reproduction. Instead sociology at its best is more like a catalog of phenomena with apparent
connections.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
If you don't subject your ideas to test in order to falsify or verify them then all you have is dogma.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Falsifiability is a meme. You can always pick whether the result actually falsifies your thesis or some auxillary assumption.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context