>>11796558Yes. Obviously those experiments are possible and common practice in psychology.
The replication crisis, by the way, doesn't just effect psychology. In medicine basically the same shit is going on...
>>11796568>1) Can you repeat itVery often.
>2) Can you repeat it and get the same resultsVery often.
>3) Can someone else repeat it and get the same resultsUsually.
>4) If there is an underlying theory, can you use this theory to predict a new (bonus points for counter intuitive) outcome from a new experiment.Yes, obviously. I mean psychology *works* just look at advertising, it is only able to be effective because there are underlying psychological theories which predict how humans act.
>I do think psychology is scientificWhy not? What specific quality is lacking?
Before you bring up the replication crisis, please look up how much Medical studies fail replication.
>but don't play braindead by pretending not to know how an experiment is verifiableI still do not know what it means, except for some vague characteristics which are obviously necessary to be scientific.
>>11796591>No it's not scienceBy what metric?
