The system isn't perfect because sometimes the evidence isn't true. But evidence based science is still the best thing humans ever developed.

uh....we have faith??...... ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.. nooooo

If the "evidence isn't really true," then it was only mistaken for evidence, in the first place. Recognizing that error is one of the ways science grows.

Whenever we discover we're wrong about a thing, we have to reset our belief about the thing. Evidence-based science makes no assertion as to the actual truth of it. Rather, science is just a process, and so far the best one we've devised for the purpose of finding truth.

The social sciences, (i.e., the so-called 'soft sciences' of psychology, sociology, anthropology, poli-sci) don't always apply the same scientific rigor as the natrual sciences (physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, etc.) and thus, in my view, do not occupy the same rung on the ladder of knowledge.

I took a bunch of psych courses about 40 years ago and one thing I learned is they are one of the hardest areas in science to devise tests for. Of course there will be errors made and many more than in other studies where tests are much more falsifiable. Everything is measured in probabilities and some areas of science is going to be able to be tested with higher probability . Evidence is information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid and some evidence is naturally going to have a higher probability of being sound. That's how science works. It's the religious folk who are never wrong at least in their own minds. Scientists should and usually do admit when they are.

Coming, as I do from never ever having had a belief in god, my disbelief was never actually science or evidence based. From the earliest age, I never found a good enough reason to ever believe in god, based solely on logic. As a child I was told by my parents to read everything and question everything, when I read the bible I didn’t believe it was true, it fell foul of my child’s reasoning very early on...in the very first book of the OT in fact. Genesis tells us the story of Adam & Eve, their fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, the talking snake etc..just like many other child’s fairy tales..okay so far. Then Adam & Eve begat two sons Cain & Abel...and lo and behold Cain slew Abel, again so like many other blood thirsty story books. Next we hear that Cain took a wife, and that is where my logical brain, even at age eight or nine, said...wait a minute, where did this wife come from? Later when I studied science at high school and learned about evolution it made much more sense than anything I’d read earlier in the bible, and it merely confirmed my disbelief in creation and a creator.

New information changes things continuously, even in science. No new information about Christianity in 2000 years.

This is rather tunnel-visioned. The article is based on one particular, rather specific science and one of it's rather specific models. The results can't be juxtaposed to any other model.

So I don't really understand what you are asking? If we should question evidence in all science?

I'm an athiest because religion is self contradictory as a whole. Yes, physiological studies are often impossible to repeat results in, but the fuck does that have to do with my non belief?

Thats the beauty of science, when it's wrong the data is thrown out and new test are done. Religion is based on faith, the lack of evidence.

Fraud is not evidence based science. Publishing fake results is not science it is fraud which is no different than religious miracles that never happened.

and this is the question I keep asking people on this site about their ignorant demands for "scientific evidence" et al for proof. when you cannot subject an experience to meter deflection for measurement then you have to go to an entirely separate set of standards to validate subjective reports in an objective manner. this is an issue we address in court constantly and I have a very hard time getting the laypersons here to grasp their conceptual error regarding consciousness analysis and the scientific method as their standard.

Evidence used to tell us that the earth was flat, and that the sun rises and sets. We could see this with our own eyes; but, science shows us that not everything that looks like evidence is evidence. And, when dealing with humans (who have agendas and egos) so called "evidence" might only look like evidence.

Although not perfect, science, and the scientific method, are the best way we have to try to understand/learn what is "true." If someone makes an inaccurate or false claim/assumption/hypothesis, it will come to light if the scientific method is strictly adhered to.

Is Psychology (the topic of the article) as it is today following scientific principals? Is what the psychologist call evidence, real evidence. For that matter is Psychology a real science? Psychology may be just an area of interest. Brain chemistry and microbiology may be the real sciences. Therapy includes motivation and too many other factors.

Like they said - therapy is in the process of REFORM , and it lists benifits to the public. Science believes all disciplines
should rely on facts ; and those facts be REVISITED and upgraded as new info becomes available . I applaud the advance in revising thier emphasis on stuff that may not be
effective- long OVERDUE.

richard dawkins says that science is always challenging and testing itself, so when things are found to be wrong, then the results will change. Also, the findings must be published and repeatable to be accepted. But it seems the believers are either afraid or reluctant to challenge the bible after so much has changed and been learned in 2000+ years.

The Aeon article concerns psychology and opens with Over the past decade, many scholars have questioned the credibility of research across a variety of scientific fields. Some of these concerns arise from cases of outright fraud or other misconduct. More troubling are difficulties in replicating previous research findings. Replication is cast as a cornerstone of science: we can trust the results originating in one lab only if other labs can follow similar procedures and get similar results.

Aeon could use the same paragraph to open an article about cosmology.

Is it that we believe evidence-based science, or do we basically trust it more than the alternatives? As was pointed out in a couple discussions from the Creation vs. Evolution board I once participated in, science has made a number of error over time but the errors were caught and corrected by the scientific method and when the evidence no longer supports (or is discovered to have never supported) a previously believe theory. Religious believers on the other hand often holds onto their religious dogma even way past any evidence or common sense to the contrary.

Mankind flails around in its efforts to learn about nature and make money at the same time.

For me that has nothing to do with the God question or with the staggering implications of existence as a consciously aware being. Science can’t even begin to address the deep questions of reality.

In the case of "evidence" being "untrue" well, that's not evidence. However, we must remember that for "the faithful" a "feeling in one's heart" counts as evidence. (Even though it isn't, then they call it faith.)

Therapy will help you as long as the therapist is not a theist. Therapy methodology will change just like other things in life change. The key is to not have a subjective approach.

i don't think so. i mean, many of us, yes. but i think we all came to the conclusion that there either definitely are no gods or probably are no gods in many different ways. i knew nothing of science when i was 15, which is when i realized there were no gods. and if the evidence isn't true, it's not evidence.

g

Fraud isn't evidence. And even if it's not fraud it could be mistaken. One of the hallmarks of science is falsifiability. If the 'evidence' isn't really true, throw it out and get better.

Aside -- I thought I was wrong once but it turned out later I was mistaken. Ha, ha.

Then you adjust your framework to fit the evidence you can count on and be much more rigorous in your testing of such information.