>>12551800where did you find that? is that from a wikipedia article? if it is i gotta say that i expected more from you, you seem like a smart individual.
one can argue that these fields began as soon as academics & philosophers began to associate the brain with behaviour. yet, designated scientists and literature did not occurring until the early-70s and even that was rare (see the first journals). from the 50s to the 90s you basically had a bunch of academics from different disciplines coming together and putting forward speculative work. only once we saw advances in our tools and techniques (e.g. gene editing, better staining/microscopy, fluorescent proteins) did we truly to begin to appreciate the nature of the field and see thorough dedication/investments from academic institutions. even so, when you compare the 70s to classic fields like chemistry and physics, it is still very young.
>if you can’t replicate it in over 50% of all casesi don’t know what you mean here. do you mean replicate the findings successfully in 50% of attempted replications? or success in 50% trials in your experiment? in either case, neither of these are good measures of validity. also a major problem is that experiments are rarely reproduced in all fields. but anyways, here’s an example of a solid publication:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16368077/>that’s what you believe no. this is what i know to be true. my undergraduate degree was in genetics and cell physiology. in our lab we have grad students and post docs from all kinds of disciplines. i’m currently screening 3 comp sci master’s students who want a position in our lab. if you could give me evidence of this maybe i can elaborate it for you.
