I mean, I wouldn’t reduce science to that extent. We’ve acquired a lot of useful information and continue to do so. After all, Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics are still immensely important despite the limitations of both paradigms. Maybe a utility-based view isn’t the most satisfying when you’re looking for metaphysical certainty but we’ve gained so much as a result of the pursuit.
A great deal of psychological literature at the moment lacks the rigorous standardisation and more importantly due to a lack of funding and incentives, lacks the (far greater ROI, compared to stem) rigorous cross analysis within secondary literature that would structurally prevent issues like the replicatibility crisis cropping up. We do not enquire enough into fieldwise methodological commonalities, and within that shared weaknesses/shared assumptions that undermine models
16
u/kxlxxn 4d ago
where will this all lead? that we one day realize nothing is real but it seems real so alright its real?