The easiest way to undermine good science is to demand that it be made “sound”
&gt; These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.<p>Because social scientists continue to make giant claims that fail to be supported by the evidence, and those claims are used to enact sweeping policies based on quackery.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nymag.com&#x2F;daily&#x2F;intelligencer&#x2F;2017&#x2F;12&#x2F;iat-behavior-problem.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nymag.com&#x2F;daily&#x2F;intelligencer&#x2F;2017&#x2F;12&#x2F;iat-behavior-pr...</a><p>Stereotype Threat. The Implicit Association Test. The Bystander Effect. Power Posing. These are examples of &quot;science&quot; that is based more on rhetoric and emotion than reality. But it is having real effects on policy.<p>If your claims are made up and based on shoddy principles, they deserve scrutiny.<p>&gt; objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies.<p>This article is literally trying to build a case of &quot;feels&quot; over &quot;reals&quot;. Transparent objective facts should guide the debate, not twisted political rhetoric masquerading as &quot;science&quot;. If your position is incorrect and does not match reality, it must be dropped, even if you would prefer it to be true to push a point.<p>I can&#x27;t believe this kind of garbage is coming out of 538