>"Social Sciences"

Studies that arent replicated arent necessarily unreplicable though! There is very little direct replication in science these days I feel.

You are correct. The current culture in science is that if you try to replicate someone else's result you are wasting time and money because it will never get published; "Ummm this work has already been published"

>this scientific method is interesting, we should try it more often
no shit

in an ideal world papers would only get published if the experiments were all replicated.

>Doesn't replicate a study/experiment
>Calls itself a science
Replication is literally the most important part of science, even more important than experimentation.

>Replication is literally the most important part of science, even more important than experimentation.
>experiments are more important than experiments

see

You can replicate a study user as well. Do you think collecting data is an experiment?

>Do you think collecting data is an experiment
replicating an experiment is still conducting an experiment

Most modern psychologists hate Freud.

Freud was a neurologist though.

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1586/259.short
>finally science researching social systems
>its ecology
Lmao social sciences BTFO by life sciences

70% of psychology don't replicate at all so are Pseudoscience, specially branches based on Freud & Marxism.
The 10% of psychology that replicate are branches more closely tied to Chemistry & Biology such as Medical Neurology, Neurochemistry & Evolutionary Psychology.
20% of Psychology are branches that partially replicates so are partially right but flawed such as Psychometrics (IQ test) & Behavior analysis.

Irrelevant.

Wheres your sources? I think youre talking crap

Neurochemistry aka the research on how Chemical Neurotransmissores such as dopamine, serotonin, GABA, & Noradrenalin affect our brains & neuronal cells are pretty much settled.
Studies on how serotonin regulates our sleep.
How dopamine is related to addiction, reward, happiness & motivation.
How Noradrenalin cause the fight or fly response.
How GABA Activate our synapses.
Etc.
There are literally thousands of studies in Nature about Neurochemistry that often replicate.
nature.com/search?journal=nature,news&q=Dopamine
Unlike other fields of Psychology such as Freudian Psychoanalysis that often do not replicate.

Neurochemistry replicates because it's more based on Biochemistry, a harder science.
Ideally should be based on Biophysics. Because theories based heavily on Math & Physics are rigorous & precise so more trustworthy.
The rest of Psychology often don't replicate because it's based less on Biochem & more based on flawed bullshit ideas from Philosophy & Sociology.
On top of that Freud theories are just kinky & sexually perverted pseudoscience bullshit.
Marxism experimentally failed all times. The Marxist Utopia never existed in History. So theories based on marxism don't have experimental basis.

All youve done is describe things. Where is your 70, 20, 10 figure from? Why you bringing freud and marx into it? Do you actually know what youre talking about. And from experience in a behavioural neuroscience lab, i know there are still replication difficulties in these areas.

I'm not a grad.
I'm just an EE undergrad sperger & libertarian who started to read Neuroscience papers just because I wanted to understand deeper about my Autism/ Asperger.

I'm just an EE undergrad student but I started to become interested in how Neuroscience can be applied to Artificial Intelligence. AI is a promising & interesting EECS research field.

Simulate

Simulating Brain in a Computer Model or by Neutral Networks
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience
Using more harder sciences as Math, Physics & EE to create a Computer Model for a Human Brain.
Describing thoughts mathematically or by more precise physical laws.
Not by Humanities & Philosophy bullshit.
Creating the breakthrough to create better Artificial Intelligences.

Simulating Brain in a Computer Model or by Neutral Networks
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience
Using more harder sciences as Math, Physics & EE to create a Computer Model for a Human Brain.
Describing thoughts mathematically or by more precise physical laws.
Not by Humanities & Philosophy bullshit.
Creating the breakthrough to create better Artificial Intelligences.

I think that the only way to save psychology is to make it heavily based on mathematically rigorous physical models using Computational Neuroscience.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience
And to discard all SLOOPY Freudian Humanities bullshit.

I barely know any sloppy freudian stuff desu

>Neurochemistry aka the research on how Chemical Neurotransmissores such as dopamine, serotonin, GABA, & Noradrenalin affect our brains & neuronal cells are pretty much settled

Spoken like a true undergrad. Strict neurotransmitter-behavior relationships are now more under fire than ever. It's increasingly evident that single neurons can and do synthesize and release mixed populations of neurotransmitter and can even demonstrate neurotransmitter-specific microdomain terminal boutons on single axons of single neurons synthesizing multiple small-molecule NTs.

If behavioral pharmacology were this simple, all of behavioral neuroscience would have been settled 30 years ago and SSRIs would work perfectly. There is a reason people are increasingly interested in systems/circuit level function as a more coherent explanation of behavior.

You heard of variational bayes? Free energy principle?