Social scientists turn the microscope on themselves also. When the microscope turns elsewhere you see similar patterns to differing extents (cf. recent articles on reanalysis of fMRI data, pharmacology replication rates, Theranos or hydroxychloroquine).
Meta-science has always been the gift of social science. This will all eventually funnel down elsewhere, just like meta-analysis.
But you're right, in that social science hits very close to home, more so than other sciences. Imagine that it suddenly worked very very well, and someone in the field of neuropsychology could manipulate behavior just like you might a lightbulb. Isn't that what critics are really asking for?
Comments
Social scientists turn the microscope on themselves also. When the microscope turns elsewhere you see similar patterns to differing extents (cf. recent articles on reanalysis of fMRI data, pharmacology replication rates, Theranos or hydroxychloroquine).
Meta-science has always been the gift of social science. This will all eventually funnel down elsewhere, just like meta-analysis.
But you're right, in that social science hits very close to home, more so than other sciences. Imagine that it suddenly worked very very well, and someone in the field of neuropsychology could manipulate behavior just like you might a lightbulb. Isn't that what critics are really asking for?