I guess my point is that I don't need to think for long before I find an example justifying why physics is a serious field.
replyWhat would be the equivalent of Newton's laws in psychology? Does such a thing exist? Or does the whole field just prove how complicated human beings are by being incapable of proving anything else (which in itself would be an interesting result, don't get me wrong)?
Physics is an exact, quantitative, natural science. Psychology is neither exact, quantitative (usually), nor a natural science. They are not comparable. But like many other fields of study that are not hard sciences, psychology can still be useful and valuable. (Note the "can". Given the replication crisis, how much of psychology actually is I cannot say.)
replyA direct conclusion. The insight I'll draw from that is that academia gives voice to the results the current zeitgeist finds interesting and believable without properly verifying the evidence.
replySee also the replication crisis.
I don't think academia runs fox news and cnn but I'll withhold judgement
replys/voice/authority/
replyFamous experiments are not chosen by academia. They are chosen by non academics. What you usually find is academics being much more reserved and more critical of these then journalists, bloggers or random commenters on HN.
replyI don't know about "much more reserved"... Citation needed. In the absence of evidence otherwise I assume academics are just people.
replyYes they are just people - people who are much close to the topic then random commenters on HN.
replyFrankly, you made up accusation of academics from nothing and without bothering to check what they generally say. You just made it up