I was a research scientist[1] for 7 years of my 25 years of working experience.
What are your credentials?
> You are wrong. There, I said that you are wrong - does that make you wrong?
That's just your opinion. The lack of replicable results in psychology is not an opinion.
We are not debating whether or not the research can be replicated, are we?
I mean, are you seriously claiming that psychology is filled with replicable studies?
[1] EDIT: an accredited national research institution.
In what field? Is it close to psychology?
> That's just your opinion. The lack of replicable results in psychology is not an opinion.
I did not claim that psychology doesn't have a lack of replicable results.
> We are not debating whether or not the research can be replicated, are we?
No, we are not. We are debating whether we can dismiss this study without defining a way to falsify our claim.
> I mean, are you seriously claiming that psychology is filled with replicable studies?
Again, I am not claiming this, nor have I claimed it previously.
I was a research scientist[1] for 7 years of my 25 years of working experience.
What are your credentials?
> You are wrong. There, I said that you are wrong - does that make you wrong?
That's just your opinion. The lack of replicable results in psychology is not an opinion.
We are not debating whether or not the research can be replicated, are we?
I mean, are you seriously claiming that psychology is filled with replicable studies?
[1] EDIT: an accredited national research institution.