Should "soft science" be considered real science? (lemmychan.org)

submitted 5 days ago by torik@lemmychan.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

spoiler

Personally? No, absolutely not. There should be no differentiating between what can be measured, and what cannot.

I can't help but look at the reproducibility issue in "Psychology" and notice, what did they do about it? Nothing. It just exists. It's not real science.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] disregardable@lemmy.zip 22 points 5 days ago

If you refuse to consider anything other than randomized control trials science, then you believe we don't have proof that smoking causes cancer.

[-] antisoumerde@quokk.au 1 points 4 days ago

I believe they did randomized trials with monkeys. Which is heartbreaking tbh

this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026

4 points (61.1% liked)

Asklemmy

54075 readers

369 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS