No. It&#x27;s bad science. I&#x27;d go as far as to say it&#x27;s fucking crappy science. Which is what TFA is saying.<p>I mean, look at the figure in TFA where they show the original study effect size plus&#x2F;minus two standard deviations, and the <i>huge</i> error bars (at 95% confidence) are just <i>barely</i> excluding the null hypothesis. With a sample size of 21 people. That is so pitiful even the Mythbusters would&#x27;ve said &quot;We need to do a bigger experiment.&quot; But this Harvard professor instead said &quot;Hooray, a significant result!&quot; and went and did TED talks and books and all sorts of publicity stuff.<p>Scott Aaronson recently quipped &quot;(...) there was much discussion around the discovery that most psychology studies fail to replicate. I&#x27;d long assumed as much, but apparently this was big news in psychology!&quot;<p>The observation in the hard sciences that psychology has a big problem goes at least back to Feynman&#x27;s &quot;cargo cult&quot; speech in &#x27;74. The fact that it&#x27;s taken them forty years to catch up to this fact speaks volumes about the field.