&gt;I don&#x27;t understand what is wrong with their methodology as described in this article that makes it junk science.<p>There is nothing wrong with this article and their methodology because it&#x27;s not about real science at all. Science produces models, with predictability (among other things) where you or I could go out and get the same results. That is far from what Google has actually demonstrated - and I don&#x27;t know whether they intended to do that in the first place.<p>Psychology has never been accepted as a science because they don&#x27;t produce accurate, reproducible models. I don&#x27;t want to sound rude, but all this stuff isn&#x27;t exactly new and can be searched for online. A random set of links from 10 seconds of googling:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2015&#x2F;aug&#x2F;27&#x2F;study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2015&#x2F;aug&#x2F;27&#x2F;study-delive...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newscientist.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newscientist.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;dn20447-journal-rejects...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;05&#x2F;failing-to-replicate-bems-ability-to.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;05&#x2F;failing-to-rep...</a>