One more time
 Just lay off the sopmorphic insults . Are you capable of that? Now, regardless if psychology is a science,  is nothing but an opinion.  Some, such as you, say no. Others yes. However,  they use the same methods as hard science,  follow the same criteria,  and have to go through rigorous years of schooling.  That being said,  you state the only reason it is not a science is that it has a replication problem in results.  Inbwhat regard? What results? Arevyou seriously saying that a dozen psychologists can not study an individual and come to tge same results,  on if he os depressed, in grief,both? If he is paranoid ? That he is schizophrenic, suffers from hallucinations,  mental breakdowns, bipolar? Is that what you are saying?  If so, i dare say you are incorrect.  Conclusions are easy to discover . What is hard is the treatment. Now, try to be civil, be a good little dee, and answer the question simply as i asked it,without regard to anything else @Dee

the f up turd breath. Ur only here to cause trouble
 . Youre muted @Dee

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42



First and foremost, you really need to calm your ego. It seems like you are more interested in just winning some virtual fight, at all costs than anything else. 

My ego is just fine , on the other hand accusing me of needing to calm my ego is advice i feel you should be taking your ego is out of control and has you thinking you're some sort of expert in things scientific.

Moreover, discrediting the use of sources without engaging with their content sidesteps the essence of the debate

I used your one source against you , the one you never even read that totally supports my contentions 

. One of the foundations of academic discourse is the citation of reliable sources, grounding arguments in previously conducted research. By challenging the validity of sources, the counterargument shifts focus from the main claims.

Swerving again , your own piece you never read supports my stance.

The reproducibility crisis in science is undeniably a challenge. However, its existence across multiple scientific fields suggests it might be more of a methodological or systemic issue rather than one solely afflicting psychology.

Nonsense, there are no empirical truths in psychology , there is no truth seeking in the field of psychology and truth seeking is fundamental to good Science.

 This doesn't render the entire discipline void; rather, it underscores the need for methodological reforms and improvements. Moreover, psychology's recognition of these issues and active efforts to address them showcases the field's commitment to integrity.

What efforts are they as a body making?

On the topic of historical figures like Sigmund Freud: the field of psychology has seen significant evolution since Freud's time. It's essential to understand that not all of his theories or ideas are emblematic of modern psychology. Every scientific discipline matures and evolves over time, refining its methodologies and perspectives based on new findings. Discrediting an entire discipline based on its early figures is a limiting perspective.

Again another misrepresentation of my position , i can discredit it using many modern day eamples and have done so already.

Appeals to authority, when founded on credible, peer-reviewed sources, are not mere name-dropping but are integral to academic discourse. Such references serve to substantiate claims and offer evidence. Disregarding these sources without addressing their content or findings hinders a constructive debate.

You gave no content just ( Hofman et all 2016) seriously thats your " academic discourse" seriously?

The diverse applications of psychology, ranging from clinical settings to organizational behavior, speak to its real-world relevance. There's a vast body of evidence underscoring the positive impacts of psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, in various societal contexts.

CBT is loaded  with flaws you didn't know this?

The original post aimed to offer a balanced view of psychology, backed by peer-reviewed studies. While every scientific discipline faces its share of criticism and challenges, these critiques should be grounded in an informed and comprehensive understanding, rather than based on broad generalizations or dismissals.

i suggest you try that approach sometime.

In any academic discussion, it's crucial to approach the topic with an open mind and engage constructively with the ideas presented. Addressing the substance of the argument rather than the individual presenting it fosters a more enriching and informative debate.

It would sure help if you even attemted to read your own ( one source) that totally agreed with my position.

Lastly, merely repeating the same arguments to me as you do to others such as maxx and dreamer do not suffice as valid refutations. For one I am not them, nor are my arguments or understanding the same as theirs. Also, continuing to repeat the same contentions without giving any explanation for them also does not hold up to scrutiny. 

All you're doing is preaching on how debate should take place in an attempt to avoid admitting your one supporting piece agreed with my postion and rubbished yours, all my contentions I backed up on the other hand  you actually think that saying ( Hofman et al 2016 ) is an argument.

FYI, @Dee fallacies are as follows:

Zeus bought a big book on fallacies and now accuses everyone of the fallacies he's guilty of

1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): Statements like "No, you didn't you posted up an emotional opinion piece void of anything substantive" and "you pretend to" directly attack the individual rather than addressing the argument they made.

2. It's not a fallacy to point out how emotional you are , I also addressed your one argument where I used your supporting piece ( you never even read ) against you 

3. Straw Man Fallacy: This fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. For instance, "Nice swerve accuse other disciplines of the same flaws and like magic those flaws disappear" is a simplification of the original point made about reproducibility issues being present in various scientific fields.

4. Nonsense,  you made no argument you just gave your opinion and attempted to bluster your way through by posting a piece younever read 

5. Red Herring: This is when someone introduces irrelevant information into an argument in an attempt to distract from the real issue. The comments on Sigmund Freud, although historically relevant, don't directly relate to the present-day validity and scientific basis of psychology as a discipline.

Nonsense,  Fraudian therapy is still a thing and is used to this day your ignorance on the field you claim you be familiar with is appalling 

You actually didn't know people are still being  duped by Fraudian therapists ,seriously? 


Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam): This fallacy suggests something is true because it hasn't been proven false. For example, "Nonsense, 'workplace efficiency' where do you get this bunk?" suggests that unless you can immediately prove the effectiveness of psychological principles in enhancing workplace efficiency, the concept is false.

Nonsense , I asked you a question you cannot answer and you play the victim, wow!

1. Cherry Picking/Selective Use of Evidence: When only specific instances are picked to validate a particular position, ignoring a significant portion of related cases. The repeated focus on reproducibility issues, while valid, overlooks the breadth and depth of psychological research and its numerous validated findings.

2. Nonsense , you'd no valid answers so understandably you dodge and swerve.

3. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. For instance, suggesting that the entire field of psychology is full of "charlatans and quacks" based on some issues or problematic figures is an overgeneralization.

4. My conclusions are based on more than that , your deliberate misrepresentation fails yet again

5. Appeal to Ridicule: This is an attempt to mock or ridicule an argument rather than addressing its substance. Examples from the counterargument include: "LOL sure thing," and "hahahahahaa."

That's a reasonable response to nonsense

1. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is used as one of the premises. Stating that psychology is untrustworthy and then using that as evidence to claim it's pseudoscience is circular.

But I didn't do that I used your piece to prove my point and you're still smarting......ouch 

1. False Dilemma: This is when only two choices are presented when more might exist. The argument presents the situation as if psychology is either completely trustworthy or entirely pseudoscientific, without considering the nuanced middle ground where most of the scientific disciplines reside.

You're really upset I used your best supporting piece( you never read) against you . You should learn some humility and take your beatings like a man.

@John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
Psychology as s a subject is medical practice. The studies which the practitioner undertakes during the medical process are said to be scientific. So yes, you can say Psychology is a science, however the more accurate term might be said as Psychology is an idea of the collection of sciences held and used in a form of form of medical practice. It is important to note that science has the burden of holding truths, this does mean it must hold whole truth and nothing but truth as well as laws of science.  Psychology Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Indeed, psychology can be viewed as a mosaic of diverse scientific disciplines, each with varying levels of rigor. For instance, areas closely aligned with medical practice, such as psychopharmacology, neuropsychology, and clinical psychology, often exhibit stringent research methodologies.

It's also pivotal to recognize the protected nature of titles like 'psychologist', 'clinical psychologist', and 'psychotherapist'. In many jurisdictions, these titles denote a specific caliber of education and training. Moreover, professionals in these fields typically undergo extensive training and scrutiny.

Furthermore, significant psychological treatments, like CBT have garnered endorsement from esteemed medical boards, including NICE, FDA, and others. Such recognition usually follows decades of empirical, evidence-based research.

More, dismissing these intricacies and achievements veers towards denialism. It's akin to denying the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic or subscribing to flat earth theories. Denial, by its nature, resists even the most substantial evidence. As a wise friend once remarked, changing minds isn't our prerogative; that task rests with the individual. Our role, perhaps, is to engage in informed debate, hoping to reach the more receptive onlookers. Such earnest seekers of scientific knowledge are our target audience, and reaching them is reward enough.

awww, poor little baby d**k breath. whats the matter dee,  dont you have the intellect to properly debate?  oh of course not. loser. poor little can of refuse has to resort to insults so she can pretend she won. @Dee

Poor little crisco cabooseis all upset cause he cant debate.. both zeus and i explained about the replication problem. Asvwell as how psychology follows the same methods as hard sciences. Yourproblemis that you can't accept anything if bit goes against your beliefs.   Now be a good little butt ucker and actually explore the issues before you attempt replies that you can not back up.  Psychology is a science @Dee

what a pathetic little parasite you are; living off the earnings of your wife that she makes off of on the streets. You have not proved anything.  simplly saying wrong is not proof you dumb twerp. Zeus made a perfect argument. no flaws at all. yet since you cant accept the conclusion, you simply resort to insutls and ridicule. I'm tired of your big mouth; it is no wonder so many actual debaters have you on forever mute. i have given you plenty of chances yet you still are just as useless as ever.  bye little man. im done with you. mute for good this time. @Dee

@maxx @Dee ;living off the earnings of your wife that she makes off of on the streets. 

I reckon that that is really totally off by saying that some ones wife is a pro. She might be but you dont have any evidence and I bet if you did have any evidence it would be that dum stuff that you get from those washy wishy editorial sites that say things like Dees wife may be a pro or Did you know that Dees wife is a pro or many people believe that Dees wife is a pro. 

We all know that Dee is an excitable dufis but I reckon your stooping real low on that one.

@MayCaesar

Thanks for your insightful thoughts. However, there are few areas that need addressing. 

"Yet virtually any question can be approached from the scientific perspective...That does not make scientific approach to nutrition any more valid."

Equating psychology with nutrition isn't exactly a fitting comparison. Each field has its own naunces. Also, i don't see how debating historical perspectives regarding anther subject is relevant to the discussion on psychology here. Let's focus on more pertinent points.

"Same goes for psychology. There is a lot of "pop-psychology" nowadays that draws big conclusions from loosely bundled up and interpreted observations - that has nothing to do with science."

Every scientific discipline rests on a spectrum of representation ranging from academic rigor to the popularized, easily digestible versions designed for the general reader. This is not exclusive to psychology. For the purpose of reaching a wider audience, complex theories and findings are often made into simpler forms that can be consumed by those without specialized knowledge in the field.

Take, for instance, theoretical physics: Einstein's theory of relativity or the concept of black holes are immensely complex, often requiring advanced mathematics to fully understand it. Yet, these topics are frequently discussed in popular science magazines, TV shows, or books in a manner that makes them accessible to the general public. An example that springs to mind is the phrase "Einstein's biggest blunder", which refers to his introduction and subsequent retraction of the cosmological constant. While catchy phrases can resonate with the broader public, they often merely skim the surface of the deeper and more sophisticated mathematical and cosmological concepts (Greene, 1999). Similarly, just as Freud's Oedipus complex is often referenced in popular media, the way it's examined and critiqued in academic psychological literature is far more detailed and comprehensive (Fonagy et al., 2012). 

In short, one shouldn't define psychology—or any scientific field, for that matter—by its popularized or pseudoscientific representations. Doing so would be akin to misrepresenting all scientific disciplines on similar grounds. Such an approach is not only misleading but also unreasonable.

"Nowadays the dominant method of approaching psychology in university departments of psychology seems to be meta-analysis of existing literature, which to me indicates that the field is experiencing a serious crisis."

The Cochrane Reviews in medicine are systematic reviews (similar to meta-analyses) of primary research in human health care and policy and are internationally recognized as high-standard health information. Using your logic here, this would entail that medicine is in crisis. But this is not the case by any means. Like in medicine, meta-analyses in psychology aims to bring together fragmented studies to provide more conclusive and generalizable results  (Cochrane, 2020).

"In the fields I am working in one cannot get away with publishing a meta-analysis study: an original contribution is expected."

Different fields have different research needs and methodologies. While some fields prioritize novel experiments, psychology values both original research and the synthesis of existing data (meta-analyses). Each approach serves to further our understanding in different ways. We shouldn't judge the value of one method based on the standards of another discipline; that just doesn't cut it. 

"It seems that in psychology one can get a publication in a high impact journal by just bundling together a bunch of studies, running some basic statistical analysis routines, finding trends and pointing them out."

@Barnardot

Thanks for your input. And while there may subfields in their infancy still, psychology generally has evolved in leaps and bounds since last many several decades. 

@Barnardot

Bruh, you are on a lost cause with Dee. He's pathologically obsessed with having the last word and thinks that somehow means he wins. So, I say just let him have the last word and let ignorance be bliss. I would be far more interested if you had anything else though to offer than being fixated on some irrelevant individual. Be nice if we can not degenerate this, please. 

Barnardot said:

@Dee ;It totally supported my piece and you never even read the piece because you have to pay for full access. 

It did not support your dog mess dissing of psychology. And I totally explained why and it was because the article said absolutely not one thing that supports your dum assertion and whats more I told you that you didn't even quote one thing from it that supports what you said and it still shows because you still cant give one single quote from the article and I bet you wont because such information does not exist any where in the article does it. 

And your sents of logic is totally void since how the heck do you work out that I didn't read it just because you have to pay, like what the. Not using your brain very well are you.

So I reckon you better tuck your tale between your legs and run away on this one to stop any more dog mess coming out.

It's astonishing that anyone would consider an established academic discipline to be fictitious. Drawing from my academic background, I have firsthand knowledge of psychology and the rigorous scholarship it demands anyway. But, to underscore my point, I'll provide an overview of some of the top universities in both the USA and the UK — institutions renowned for their selectivity. I'll also highlight esteemed figures recognized universally in the scientific community, such as Steven Pinker, author of 'The Blank Slate'.

Relevant Courses in Psychology at Harvard:

1. Concentration in Psychology:

   • Harvard's equivalent to a major, students can opt for a general track or can specialize in Cognitive Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psychology (CNEP) or Cognitive Science.

2. Secondary in Psychology:

   • Harvard's equivalent to a minor for students who wish to supplement their primary field of study.

General Entry Requirements for Harvard College:

1. Common Application, Coalition Application, or Universal College Application: Harvard accepts any of these forms.
2. High School Transcript: A record of your academic performance.
3. SAT or ACT: Though testing policies can vary by year and may be impacted by global events (e.g., COVID-19).
4. Two SAT Subject Tests: These were traditionally required, but policies may vary.
5. Two Teacher Evaluations: From teachers who have taught you in an academic subject.
6. School Report and High School Profile: This includes your counselor recommendation.
7. Mid-Year School Report: With your senior year grades.
8. Final School Report: For admitted students who choose to enroll.
9. Personal Essay: As part of the application.
10. Application Fee or Fee Waiver: As required.
11. Supplemental Essay: Harvard requires an additional essay.
12. English Proficiency Test Scores: For non-native English speakers (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS).

Notable Figures Associated with Psychology at Harvard:

1. 1. Steven Pinker: A cognitive psychologist known for his research on language and evolutionary psychology. He's also a prolific author, with books such as "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and "Enlightenment Now."

   2. Joshua Greene: A cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher, he's known for his research on moral judgment and decision-making. His work often integrates approaches from cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, and philosophy.

   3. Elizabeth Spelke: A distinguished cognitive psychologist, she focuses on the cognitive development of infants, exploring topics like spatial cognition, number sense, and object representation.

   4. Susan Carey: Renowned for her work on conceptual development, she investigates how children's understanding of concepts like number and causality evolve.

   5. Matthew Nock: Recognized for his work on self-harm, suicide, and the assessment and improvement of risk prediction for these behaviors.

   6. Jesse Snedeker: Focuses on language processing, language development, and the relationship between syntax and semantics.

   7. Jason Mitchell: Explores the brain basis of social cognition, particularly the processes by which we contemplate ourselves and others.
      

   8. Alison Gopnik: Though affiliated more closely with UC Berkeley, she received her PhD from Harvard. A leading figure in cognitive development, especially known for her work on children's learning and reasoning.

References:

1. Harvard University - Official Website: harvard.edu
2. Department of Psychology, Harvard: Department's website

1. Psychological and Behavioural Sciences (PBS):
   • This is the main undergraduate course for those interested in psychology at Cambridge. It covers various areas of psychology, from social psychology to neuroscience.

Entry Requirements for PBS:

1. UCAS Application: All undergraduate applications to UK universities are done through UCAS.
2. A-Level (or equivalent) Grades: Typical offers usually range from AAA to A*AA or equivalent.
3. Subject Requirements: No mandatory subject requirements, but a background in at least one science subject (like Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, or Psychology) can be advantageous.
4. Admissions Assessment: Applicants usually take the Natural Sciences (NSAA) pre-interview assessment.
5. Interview: Shortlisted candidates are invited for an interview.
6. Personal Statement & Reference: Part of the UCAS application.
7. English Proficiency: Non-native English speakers might need to provide proof of proficiency.

Notable Figures associated with Psychology at Cambridge 

• Professor Trevor Robbins: A prominent researcher in neuropsychology, Robbins is known for his work on the functions of the frontal lobes of the brain and their connections with other regions, particularly regarding decision-making, impulsivity, and compulsivity.

• Professor Barbara Sahakian: Known for her research in clinical neuropsychology, especially in the fields of cognitive psychopharmacology, neuroethics, and early detection of Alzheimer's disease.

• Professor Paul Fletcher: Recognized for his work in the understanding of psychosis and delusional beliefs, incorporating computational models and brain imaging techniques.

• Dr. Jason Rentfrow: His work largely focuses on the role of personality in various aspects of social life, ranging from music preferences to political orientations.

• Professor Usha Goswami: A leading figure in the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience, particularly known for her work on children's cognitive development, dyslexia, and rhythmic speech.

• Dr. Amy Orben: Her recent work on the impact of digital technology, especially social media, on adolescent well-being has garnered significant attention.

• Dr. Rogier Kievit: Focuses on the relationship between cognitive and brain development, especially in the realm of intelligence and executive functions.

These are just a few of the many accomplished individuals associated with psychology at Cambridge. It's also worth noting that the field is vast and constantly evolving, with new scholars and researchers making significant contributions regularly. For the latest updates and comprehensive details on faculty, alumni, and research outputs, it's always best to refer directly to the specific department or faculty websites of the University of Cambridge.

References: 

1. University of Cambridge - Official Website: cam.ac.uk
2. Psychological and Behavioural Sciences at Cambridge: PBS course details

1. Psychology, Philosophy, and Linguistics (PPL):

   • This is a joint honors undergraduate course that allows students to explore psychology in combination with philosophy and linguistics.

2. Experimental Psychology:

   • A course focusing more exclusively on psychological theories, methods, and research.

Entry Requirements for PPL and Experimental Psychology:

1. UCAS Application: Applications for undergraduate courses are submitted through UCAS.
2. A-Level (or equivalent) Grades: Offers are typically based on achieving high grades.
3. Subject Requirements: At least one of Biology, Mathematics, Chemistry, or Physics is often required.
4. Admissions Test: The Thinking Skills Assessment (TSA) is usually required for PPL.
5. Interview: Shortlisted candidates are typically invited for interviews.
6. Personal Statement & Reference: Both are parts of the UCAS application.
7. English Proficiency: Non-native English speakers might need to demonstrate proficiency through exams like IELTS or TOEFL.

Notable Figures associated with Psychology at Oxford:

• Professor Dorothy Bishop: Renowned developmental neuropsychologist, especially known for her research on developmental language disorders.

• Professor Robin Dunbar: Recognized for "Dunbar's number", which posits a limit to meaningful social relationships humans can maintain. His work largely revolves around evolutionary psychology and anthropology.

• Professor Elaine Fox: Known for her research on the links between cognition and emotion and their influence on well-being and resilience.

• Professor Sunetra Gupta: While primarily an infectious disease epidemiologist, her work intersects with aspects of behavioral psychology in the context of infectious disease transmission.

References:

1. University of Oxford - Official Website: ox.ac.uk
2. Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford: Department's website

If I'm not mistaken, this is all very real. Unless, of course, I'm in an alternate universe where 2+2 equals 5. But then again, what would experts who've dedicated their lives to their fields truly know? Satire!

@Dee ;Poor old Barndoor , you know that part of my piece highlighted in blue? 

If you want to keep on being dishonest and evasive thats up to you but the only one your kidding is your self. No skin off my doolie.

@Dreamer

If you review earlier discussions, you'll see that the topic you mentioned has already been extensively addressed.

Regarding @Dee, there's a clear disConnect. 'm 99.9% certain I'm not the one spouting nonsensical ideas. When @Dee tries to dismiss medical and academic science as fake, and @maxx claiming we all practice psychology daily, it undermines the conversation. These sound like remarks Deepak might make. Is the irony lost on anyone else?

I'm beginning to suspect that Dee might be infatuated with both @maxx and Deepak or is simply a troll with a bad-faith agenda.

Given his trajectory, I wouldn't be surprised if @Dee soon disputes the theory of evolution, the roundness of the Earth, climate change, vaccine efficacy, and other foundational scientific concepts. His current behavior certainly hints at that!

ZeusAres42 said:

Equating psychology with nutrition isn't exactly a fitting comparison. Each field has its own naunces. Also, i don't see how debating historical perspectives regarding anther subject is relevant to the discussion on psychology here. Let's focus on more pertinent points.

I do not disagree with this. However, the scientific method fundamentally is the same in all fields - as are pitfalls people find themselves in when misinterpreting the findings in the field, as the poster I mentioned did in the nutrition debate.
The historical perspective is useful in that it illustrates these pitfalls perfectly: while the details have changed obviously, human brains have not changed significantly, and the same logical errors that people used to make in Ancient Greece people make today.

ZeusAres42 said:

Every scientific discipline rests on a spectrum of representation ranging from academic rigor to the popularized, easily digestible versions designed for the general reader. This is not exclusive to psychology. For the purpose of reaching a wider audience, complex theories and findings are often made into simpler forms that can be consumed by those without specialized knowledge in the field.

Take, for instance, theoretical physics: Einstein's theory of relativity or the concept of black holes are immensely complex, often requiring advanced mathematics to fully understand it. Yet, these topics are frequently discussed in popular science magazines, TV shows, or books in a manner that makes them accessible to the general public. An example that springs to mind is the phrase "Einstein's biggest blunder", which refers to his introduction and subsequent retraction of the cosmological constant. While catchy phrases can resonate with the broader public, they often merely skim the surface of the deeper and more sophisticated mathematical and cosmological concepts (Greene, 1999). Similarly, just as Freud's Oedipus complex is often referenced in popular media, the way it's examined and critiqued in academic psychological literature is far more detailed and comprehensive (Fonagy et al., 2012). 

In short, one shouldn't define psychology—or any scientific field, for that matter—by its popularized or pseudoscientific representations. Doing so would be akin to misrepresenting all scientific disciplines on similar grounds. Such an approach is not only misleading but also unreasonable.

I agree with absolutely everything you wrote here. My point was that pseudoscientific representations was what many people commonly called "psychology" (or any other science) - as such, discussions such as this sometimes result in people talking past each other, meaning different things by the same word. At least this does not seem to be happening between us: we are on the same page as far as the terminology goes.

ZeusAres42 said:

The Cochrane Reviews in medicine are systematic reviews (similar to meta-analyses) of primary research in human health care and policy and are internationally recognized as high-standard health information. Using your logic here, this would entail that medicine is in crisis. But this is not the case by any means. Like in medicine, meta-analyses in psychology aims to bring together fragmented studies to provide more conclusive and generalizable results  (Cochrane, 2020).

I do think that medicine is in a pretty serious crisis as well, on multiple accounts. The landmarks of a stagnant field - lack of fresh ideas and, instead, constant rehashing and recompiling of ideas of the old, without any significant movement forward; forfeiture of the causal reasoning in favor of the correlatory one; disproportionately high funding of the administrative complex surrounding the labs - are all there.

In comparison, look at computer science, or physics, or mathematics, or chemistry, or even archaeology... Or my favorite one - astrobiology, a field that itself can be considered an innovation. In these fields you have multiple papers suggesting very brave deviations from the old orthodoxy, new technology inspired by recent ideas, user-friendly software that anyone can download right now and start producing previously unseen analyses - multiple times a day. Take a very narrow question of possibility of life on Venus: there are hundreds of papers on this exploring various aspects of it and proposing very counter-intuitive experiments. This is what science is at its best, when it is in its natural, healthy state.

Psychology, medicine, economics, sociology - these fields, while certainly not without regular meaningful advancements, unfortunately are quite stagnant. They do not attract young and ambitious researchers and, instead, are chiefly populated by old professors sitting on their laurels.
I will make one clarification: there are regional variations that are worth noting. Medicine seems to be doing quite well in Asian countries such as Taiwan, Singapore, Korea and Japan, that are looking into utilizing nanotechnology or stem cells, among other things. On the West, aside from machine learning methods (that themselves came from computer science, not medicine), I do not see much novelty in the field, despite a VAST array of unanswered questions. There is a lot of serious work done in biology, but connecting it to medicine often proves to be a challenge.

A lot of what I said here is more of my personal opinion, and I would have a hard time backing it up with real data - so take it with a grain of salt, please.

ZeusAres42 said:

Different fields have different research needs and methodologies. While some fields prioritize novel experiments, psychology values both original research and the synthesis of existing data (meta-analyses). Each approach serves to further our understanding in different ways. We shouldn't judge the value of one method based on the standards of another discipline; that just doesn't cut it. 

I believe that certain methodologies are universal and derive directly from the demands of the scientific method. I am not saying that meta-analyses are useless; however, when meta-analyses are the norm and novel research are the exception, then the field desperately needs a fresh air, in my opinion.

ZeusAres42 said:

I must point out here that your take appears to overlook the rigorous process and criteria required for publication in not just high-impact psychology journals, but also any reputable science journal for that matter. Meta-analyses, like other scientific publications, undergo a stringent peer-review process. A solid meta-analysis requires not only the aggregation of data but also a rigorous methodology, clear rationale, and a significant contribution to the field. It is generally accepted among researchers that papers lacking these components are unlikely to pass the peer-review process, as emphasized by Suls & Martin (2009).

In theory, I would agree with you. In practice, it is quite well known that peer-review procedures and standards vary significantly between journals, and, less generally, between fields. In pure mathematics one can rarely get away with even one small mistake, while in observational physics it is quite common for a paper to undergo multiple major post-publication revisions often correcting something as glaring as an extra order of magnitude in the table due to an error in a Python script. In computer science reputable journals expect some measure of performance improvement upon the best method in existence (which does have the downside that papers have to be written extremely quickly and, perhaps, hastily, as what is cutting edge today may become obsolete in a couple of months), while in biology often simply suggesting a principally new modestly performing method is sufficient.

My impression is that in most social sciences people can get away with something that in "harder" disciplines would not even be considered an original contribution. Many of the analyses people seem to do there almost anyone could do at their home in their spare time, as long as they have the data on hand. While for every single paper I have contributed to, journals expected some originality in methodology, something that no one has ever done. Not just "this data has not been analyzed yet", but "data has not been analyzed yet in this framework". I realize that it might not be necessary for every single paper for every single field - one could use the same method to study 3 archly different archaeological sites and draw 3 different sets of conclusions from them - yet this is what I expect to be the norm in a healthy field. When every researcher cares enough about their hypotheses that they are not satisfied with just running some analysis routines through them, but try to think about them in a way no one else has thought before.

All of this could be just my personal projection, but this is my best take on this.