rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I don't know. The criticism is that this research is massively substandard, not even worth looking at. If no one used it, it wouldn't matter. So this is exactly what we want. The only way this discipline will clean up its act is if it can't sell its BS anymore. Change definitely won't come from within. So it has to to come from the users of this research. Who need to be come non-users, on the basis that it's so substandard it's not even worth looking at in its current form.But we work together (which is good for funding: it's multidisciplinary!). And having other fields being critical of behavior research makes it easy to argue to your in-group "those people just don't get what we do" and ignore the criticism like before.
To emphasize on a point I made in another comment, it's not necessary for an attorney to be a trial attorney to know that hearsay is invalid evidence. Trial attorneys should especially be aware of this, but this here is a case where they know better but still make heavy use of it, all because no one seems to object to something they know is invalid.
All health care professionals understand that this type of trial is useless. There's something else going on here that makes something everyone understands to be invalid be exempt from rules they apply strictly in most cases.