News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud. Parent comment

Re:Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles wi... by jfengel on Sunday August 22, 2021 @08:24AM (#28264900)
Generalizing further, it touches on the Demarcation Problem. What is the difference between scientific hypothesis revision and pseudoscientific goalpost moving?

Surely there is one, but it's maddeningly hard to pin down. Especially when the experiments are hard to perform and control properly, which applies both to psychology and astronomy.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles wi... by dalbasal on Sunday August 22, 2021 @08:32AM (#28264940)
This kind of demarcation usually hints that you are dealing with a subject that is not as concrete as you had supposed. "Science" doesn't really have a concrete definition, a pseudoscience just means stuff that is pretending to be science.

Remember that scientists existed before philosophy of science, including formalisations of The Scientific Method. Darwin wasn't following the scientific method, the method followed him.

[ Parent | on HN ]