Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Most of psychology can't be ethically tested. It doesn't mean the entirely field is not empirically verifiable.


Is there a reasonable distinction between "it's not possible to test $X" and "it's not possible to test $X in any ethical way?"


Yes

edit: I was trying to jokingly reply "Yes {smiling-imp-emoji}" when I realized I've never seen an emoji on Hacker News before - looks like they get automatically removed!


Perhaps one distinction would be that ethics change across time and country. So it might be possible to run a test in 2020s UK that cannot be repeated in 2030s.


It means it hasn’t been verified, which means you can’t be sure a lot of it is useful at all.


Scientific rigor has it's limits. Certain fields need to make intuitive leaps of speculation.

For example the entire field of astronomy is basically unverifiable bullshit. It's all speculation. We make guesses on what's going on with the stars outside of our solar system from twinkling light that comes from light years away.

Any science to verify the claims made by astronomy with the amount of rigor you demand would involve light speed space ships to go to those stars and verify.

If we could do this I think you'd find a ton of astronomy would be flat out wrong.

Nonetheless the field is still useful and legitimate despite the high likelihood a lot of it is wrong and despite the fact we can't verify much.


That doesn't prevent modern researchers from using past data collected via less scrupulous means though. e.g. Pavlov's experiments




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: