I knew you would try this as youre a lightweight. You actually said all science is tainted as are the studies and my belief in them (especially the soft sciences)...
so no you did not imply just soft sciences and what I said was not a non-sequitor as my statement did follow from yours. This tactic might work on morons, so nice try.
Boghossian did not expose what you are claiming he did, his initial attempt was to shitty journals outside of the filed in question, the second run was more damaging but again its in the fucking world of gender studies which I think is retarded and frankly new.
Psychology, philosophy, anthropology and sociology are all legitimate practices with ample research.
This is the thing, there is tons of academic dishonesty in the hard sciences too. The whole "Publish or Perish."
"Academic dishonesty in publishing is a significant and growing problem across hard sciences, driven by intense "publish or perish" pressures. The misconduct, which includes fraud, plagiarism, and manipulated peer reviews, undermines scientific integrity, damages public trust, and can lead to the retraction of thousands of scientific papers"
Analyses of PubMed retractions (Fang, Steen, & Casadevall, 2012, PNAS) suggest about 67% of retractions in biomedical and life sciences are due to misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism).
When asked about colleagues, the numbers were higher: ~14% for fabrication/falsification and up to 72% for questionable practices.
A 2025 study from Northwestern University found that "the publication of fraudulent science is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications." The study also discovered broad networks of organized scientific fraudsters. So, even with the hard sciences, fraudulent research is outpacing legitimate research.
Questionable Research Practices:
Beyond outright fraud, there's a broader category of behavior called "questionable research practices" (QRPs). These are actions that violate good research practices but may not constitute outright fraud. They include things like:
P-hacking: Selectively analyzing data to find a statistically significant result.
HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known.
Selective reporting: Not reporting data that don't support the hypothesis.
Improper authorship: Including someone as an author who didn't contribute significantly.
Studies show a much higher prevalence of these practices. The 2009 meta-analysis found that up to 33.7% of scientists admitted to engaging in questionable research practices.
