I enjoyed reading this article and the many comments to follow, especially the discussion with @liberosist . I know it's probably uncouth to solicit readers, but I would absolutely love to hear your perspectives and discussion on my "Action Potential" posts, which I will be trying to put out a few times a week. Basically, I try to review some "hot" news in neuroscience, and try to give a more informal perspective than either the news release or the scientific article...like how your neuroscientist friend (that's me!) approaches and thinks about these articles and news stories.

I think many scientists think a lot like you. I'm not sure if that would surprise you or not. Your article kind of carries an anti-scientist tone in some parts (e.g. that sociology and psychology are bullshit or that peer-review is a circle jerk). Some fields definitely have replication problems, but the reason that we know that is because other scientists from within these fields have spent their careers debunking bad evidence. There have certainly been cases of fraudulent or unethical review, but these are usually caught and the perpetrators are shunned from the scientific community.

Recently in my teaching philosophy statement, I wrote that the mindset that arises naturally from viewing knowledge as transient is the secret sauce of good critical thinking and the path to wisdom. It sounds like you're on that path, and that you're sharing that perspective with the world. Just be careful that you separate your distaste for blind faith in knowledge from trusting in the usefulness of the scientific method if applied correctly. If the institutions of science were reformed, we would be able to understand more, think in better models, and build more useful things faster. If the institutions of science were abandoned or destroyed, that progress would slow or stop.