On replication, this same criticism has recently been directed at physics, chemistry and biology, among others. [1]
Psychology, with view to its practical (non-research) use has not helped me, but at least three people I know say they benefitted from cognitive behavioural therapy. Perhaps in the future, medicine and science will subordinate it to the same role of philosophy to better explain human behaviour and thinking as the latter did in less techical approaches for centuries. [2]
And yes, I am somewhat skeptical of said blog posts that cite some "new study" claiming to explain something only to be refuted or contradicted months later.
>The psychology replication crisis is much worse than any other field.
The article doesn't get into this.
Coming from a physics background, I will not say there's a crisis, but:
1. Few research is replicated.
2. We who did physics research were very unconcerned about whether our results could be replicated. Our journal papers were very concise, and it was common practice not to give all the details needed to replicate, partially due to paper size concerns, but very often also to keep the "secret recipe" to ourselves as a means to prevent others from conducting future research that we want to conduct (need less competition for grant money).
3. Pick any researcher in any field of physics, and ask them: "Can you list a few papers published in the last 15 years that are highly cited that you think are completely wrong?" Everyone will have a list like that. Everyone.
>You and/or your publishers are terrible human beings.
Eh? Not sure why. Because we have a list of papers we don't believe? It would be naive to believe everything that is published.
I don't like the notion of withholding information, and personally I would not like to accept any paper that does that, but I'm merely stating the norm in the field.
You still have to contend with journal size restrictions. A paper in Physical Review Letters needs to be less than 3 pages. You simply cannot put in enough detail for replication in there. Nature has a page limit of 5.
Maybe I was wrong but here are the reasons for the condemnation
1. propagating falsehoods, or flaws in published work without correcting or refuting their validity, claims etc. by your strong admission that everyone knows of such work (which is subsequently used and cited) yet "completely wrong" there must be so much crap getting published. but there is disinclination to do anything about it
2. witholding of information necessary for reproducing results of experiments as a means of discouraging co-operation with peers you view as rivals or adversaries.
The second is really serious because it effectively subverts the scientific method, undermining scientific consensus and progress. That these are "norms in the field" means nothing save for everybody's indifference and lack of cooperation.
Historically you have the roles reversed in that medicine and science are both subordinates of philosophy. But admittedly due to the predominance of analytic philosophy, particularly in modern western philosophy, it has become much more of what you describe. This is really more a failing of modern philosophy than a condemnation of the field as a whole. There were/are/will-be many philosophers that don't ascribe to its limitations.
As a former philosophy student, I disavow philosophy for its uselessness. Save for ethics and a few niche topics of inquiry where it has practical utility, its only function is to add epistemlogical detail to science's study of nature (historically known as natural philosophy).
To paraphrase what John Locke said to Newton: "Sir, it is the lesser duty of mine as Philosopher and under labourer of the Natural Philsopher, to remove the debris and furnish detail that the latter imparts to our Knowledge."
Psychology, with view to its practical (non-research) use has not helped me, but at least three people I know say they benefitted from cognitive behavioural therapy. Perhaps in the future, medicine and science will subordinate it to the same role of philosophy to better explain human behaviour and thinking as the latter did in less techical approaches for centuries. [2]
And yes, I am somewhat skeptical of said blog posts that cite some "new study" claiming to explain something only to be refuted or contradicted months later.
[1] http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-...
[2] Wittgenstein conceded that philosophy in the 20th century would only be useful in itsapproaches to linguistics and language