Where am I claiming that "the whole field isn't valid"? I said there's a reproducibility crisis and that the reliance on p-values has been criticised in various fields.

I made no claim that his interpretations are "wrong". I said that his interpretations are most likely wrong because he's not a psychologist and he doesn't understand the field. That's what you expect from non-experts who pretend to know what they're talking about, to be talking nonsense.

>> That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.

You keep insulting me.

At least provide some citations or examples before you use such childish phrases as "sai-ent-tifickal". You sound really terrible when arguing like that.

Your argument just came down to: "I don't lend any credence to psychology/sociology, therefore I'm right to label it all pseudoscience." Also, since you're not supplying particulars, your mention of your background just amounts to argument by authority. Unless one grants that, I don't see that you really have a supported position. The rest is all heated assertion on your part. I will happily leave it to 3rd party readers to decide who is being intellectually honest here.

There seem to be a plague of pseudo-academics under the "Postmodernist" flag, which claim their own "alternative facts" and "alternative logic." In such an environment, skepticism and asking for substantiation of positions is quite understandable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfYIpgpMUYU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8&

If, on the other hand, you'd like to actually substantiate something, then it would seem this would be beneficial and educational. (One thing we've seen from Postmodernist "fake academics" is that they are actually embarrassed when people are given a link to their work.)