Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "This Cornell Scientist Destroyed His Career in One Blog Post" video.

I'm not surprised, I've heard a bunch of excuses about the social sciences as to why garbage results are acceptable. Apparently, the hard sciences are just easier to do reliably and always have been. There certainly hasn't been an effort over the course of centuries to ring as much reliability out of the methods as possible involved. It seems to me that so much of this is in part the result of considering crap results like those with a P in the .7-8 as quality work, when really, that just indicates that there's potentially a lot more to what's going on and that there should be work made to get better results as ..75 is not that much better than 50/50. It's certainly not good enough to do much with. Yes, humans can and do vary, but that doesn't excuse t he attitude that there's no need to figure out ways of ringing out more reliability and more reproducibility from the test participants you can get. Sure, the results will never be as precise or generalizable as you get from physics or chemistry, but there's a lot more that could be done if folks were expecting more when they designed and executed the experiments.
1