The evidence...


http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/14501000...f593aaee00.jpg

Now that's something that can melt steel beams.

I got my first peer review rejection letter this month, which means I'm officially a real scientist now.

Which science?

Psychological science.

Are you asking because you place greater value on physical sciences over behavioural ones?

as having almost completed my B.S. in psychogy(no pun attended) I can attest, from what I've learned so far, it really is all BS

It's fine if you think so, but I'm interested to hear why.

mostly because i am being deliberately inflammatory

did you ever read this earlier in the year?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/sc...says.html?_r=0

everything seems ultimately subjective after the behaviorism stuff i feel like more shifted to neurology

i think psychologists, counselors etc still have high societal value

I did actually see this, and I could give you an argument for either side.

Yes, publication bias is rampant, and pressure to publish in order to attain tenure leads to questionable claims and even questionable research. And yes, nobody does replication studies because replications and null findings aren't sexy to the editors.

But on the other hand, to look at any one study and expect it to be conclusive is not the way science is done. Science accumulates, and it produces rubble. When we're too close to the rubble, it just looks like piles of rock, but eventually a mountain emerges. A study is only conclusive after decades of research on the topic that corroborates it.

So yes, publications in isolation are producing questionable and problematic results--even honest studies lead to questionable conclusions--but science as a practice, be it a hard science or a "soft" one, is still a valuable enterprise.

The review that was rejected was a systematic review which screened 10,000 papers to arrive at the conclusion: "You would think after 10,000 such studies, there would be positive results if this worked. Either it doesn't work, or we need to change the way we're thinking about it".

It was rejected by the journal for not presenting significant findings.

I wish i could provide examples but i honestly don't remember most of what I've learned. Googling a lot of my textbook significant psychological findings found plenty of valid criticisms I have not been taught.

I'm taking a counselor psychology course and everything is just an acronym or bubble diagram or some overly descriptive thing for something someone could likely think of themselves to be blunt