Psychology asks a question and examines the answer for a pattern of understanding, questions come from people, the answers come from people and the analysis or interpretation ultimately comes from a person. It's not like a physical science where assertions and observations have to match a physical state, algorithm or formula.
The evidence in studies of the mind is always subjective, there is a significant problem when those interactions and discussions are combine with physical sciences, it is inherently dominated by the subjective!
Much of the current debate isn't even scientific, it is politics / social politics dressed up in a veneer of science!
You can mount a philosophical or logical debate about some of the various claims, but the problem is to do that with integrity you have to assume that the people involved act logically, and we know that often they don't!
Carl Sagan was 100% correct when he made the statement, "The more extraordinary a claim is, the greater the burden of proof that is associated with it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"
The evidence in studies of the mind is always subjective, there is a significant problem when those interactions and discussions are combine with physical sciences, it is inherently dominated by the subjective!
Much of the current debate isn't even scientific, it is politics / social politics dressed up in a veneer of science!
You can mount a philosophical or logical debate about some of the various claims, but the problem is to do that with integrity you have to assume that the people involved act logically, and we know that often they don't!
Carl Sagan was 100% correct when he made the statement, "The more extraordinary a claim is, the greater the burden of proof that is associated with it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"