Science is a mess right now, especially psychology. There have been several cases of massive data fraud and concern that the literature the field is based on is often times false. This is a collection of articles I’ve about how we can use psychology and science to improve the situation. This is an important thing to do for several reasons:

  1. If we can improve the efficiency of science, it will improve the entire species’ outcomes, because, put simply, there will be more science, more innovation.
  2. Ultimately, this is taxpayer funded, and science (as a whole) has a responsibility to use that money the best way it can.
  3. If we can more efficiently use taxpayer funds, we can serve as a model of best practices for other human endeavors (e.g., education, infrastructure, medicine), which will ensure continued and increased funding.

Ultimately, the best solutions to be problems of science will be based on science themselves.

What we try to do in this series of articles is apply science to the problem in order to understand:  what is at the root and  the types of solutions that are going to work (ones that people want to do).

If you are looking for something a bit more juicy, you can skip the foundations and read about what a psychologically informed communication system looks like. Or, you can read more about why we have a moral obligation to improve science.

If you would like to see an article about something, or have an opinion about something you read here, leave it below! 😀

Find us on Facebook or Twitter.



  1. Unfortunately science has little of importance to say about human morality which can’t be proven in the lab or by analysis of statistical norms which have no clear cause effect relationships. Situation ethics in psychology is an immoral approach to human behavior where almost anything goes and it must be replaced by a common universal worldwide human morality and a refection of this morality in human laws. Psychology desperately needs a moral rudder to guide it through its current morass and I suggest that you consider teaching an updated moral code to all impressionable young minds in elementary school so that students can react impulsively without having to ask themselves every time. Is what I am doing the right thing to do? That worldwide morality should be-except in emergency situations- don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t lie, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery if married, and don’t murder. Honesty, sincerity, dependability, competence, and friendliness is necessary to create a trusting relationship between humans and is vital for peaceful human interactions. As a psychologist you must have realized that you are trying to replace the function that religions had historically and unless you psychologists adopt a moral code to teach with real life examples of its application you are doomed to fail in your quest to control human behavior. Best wishes. Uldis

    1. I have an idea for a morality, it is basically the golden rule, with a few modifications. There is a reason it is foundation for all the major religions! 😀

      Psychologists, but also science, is attempting to replace the moral code. 🙂

  2. The golden rule is treat others the way that you wish to be treated. The rich and poor man, the smart and not so smart have great differences of opinion because this rule is not adequate for a just formulation of laws which have to consider wildlife, efficiency, and deceptions of all kinds. Where does merit play a role in the golden rule. Nowhere! Read my book JUSTICE and you will realize that there is more to life than the golden rule!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s