But we're not talking about "psychology, as a whole" we're talking about the hypothesis that sex with children harms them. Saying that some areas of psychology have bad studies is irrelevant. I pointed to a specific study. You seem to have some rigor problems with this study, but the sort of errors you point out are not indicative of an unscientific mentality by the practitioners. I argued that many studies like the one I cited exist, and they can combine to produce a scientific conclusion despite the (unavoidable) defects in rigor you may have found.
With a subject as emotional as this, and given the state of psychology, you can't expect any other result. Any other studies (likely bad science too) that reach a different conclusion would be criticized out of existence, and have been. Those studies don't say what people want to hear, and that may be why. Or it may not be.
Ohhh, it's a conspiracy to silence people who agree with you; that's why the theory I'm arguing for hasn't been falsified. Here I thought we were discussing what level of rigor was appropriate in experiment design.
So, then, if interviews can be used ("It's plainly obvious that they can be used"), and assumptions coming between measurements and conclusions is okay ("...pretend as if I'm saying psychology needs to be perfect", in response to "Did they seriously forget to control for the strength of magnetic field when testing which energy levels resulted in those reactions"), in what way is physics qualitiatively more scientific than the sort of psychology that contains this study, rather than just in shades of rigor. Both have underlying, coherent theories which purport mechanisms and make predictions. Those predictions are falsifiable by experiment, and rival theories make different predictions. Real experiements are then designed to test these predictions and distinguish the theories, taking care to eliminate as much background noise as possible in any given experiment. Practitioners then advise and inform the public on those theories which have been shown to resist falsification. This process is science, and vague lectures about rigor are insufficient to claim otherwise.
The hypothesis that sex with children harms those children has been around for a while, and has resisted attempts to falsify it by a variety of different experiments, designed and run by different groups. These attempts could have falsified it. No competing hypothesis has proven nearly so robust. It is our duty as science-minded people to act as though that hypothesis is true.
If I'm going 90MPH and I bump someone going 89MPH we'll be fine and have minimal damage to our cars. If I'm going 45 and bump someone going 44 it's the same. But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.
Maybe if you'd said 65 instead of 90, you'd be right. But any bump at 90 has a respectable chance of leading to loss of control by one or both vehicles; typical cars just don't maneuver at those speeds with unless it's very gradual.
Also, you characterized someone going 90 bumping someone going 45 with the fault being on the "difference in speed." I don't care if the car in front of you is stopped, you are always responsible for maintaining a safe slow-down distance, checking mirrors during lane change, and paying attention. Even if the car going 45 gets a ticket for "failure to maintain minimum speed," it's the one in the rear who has to pay the bills.
You've convinced me. You've convinced me so well that I think hitting people in the head with baseball bats, causing concussions, should be legal, because otherwise that would infringe on people's freedoms. Measurements of mental capacity after severe concussions are subjective. Any conclusion that being hit with a baseball bat is painful is unscientific, also, because that would rely on patients self reporting their pain level. If you say "medical bills," the bills used to justify this had better not include any pain treatment or physical therapy. If you say "harm is objective, because of brain scans," I'll ask how you know the brain scan is actually related to pain or diminished mental capacity.
If the only illegal acts were those shown to be harmful at the level of rigor found in a good experimental physics article, I don't think anything at all would actually be illegal.
P.S. Yes, interviews can be used in science. ("Interview," here, often means asking a series of quantitative or yes/no questions with scripting wording.) Also, if you think that particle physics experiments set up a cause and directly measure effect, without numerous intervening assumptions, then you should read more about them. (Did they seriously forget to control for the strength of magnetic field when testing which energy levels resulted in those reactions?!)
It is, however, significantly more prone to bias than other fields (like physics) with actual scientific rigor.
How should we? I don't know, but that's irrelevant. Bad science is bad science. Accepting bad science just because we don't know anything else is ridiculous.
Two points. First, I think you overstate your argument about the rigor of modern psychology. Imperfection, and failing to have the same level of rigor as physics (when such rigor would be impossible), does not automatically make bad science. The study in question uses twins, focusing on situations where one twin reports that they were abused and the other does not. It then asks these twins separately, in interviews, a variety of questions about things like alcohol use and suicide attempts. The researchers performed statistical analysis to ensure the data truly does show correlation. True, there are other explanations for the correlation than the mechanism suggested, but this is true of many physics results as well. Your objection seems to be based on the fact that there is "subjective" assessment involved, such as concluding that reporting "I tried to kill myself last year" is related to actual attempts. "Subjective" methods like this are used well beyond psychology and other "pseudosciences." Do you think we shouldn't give morphine to patients in pain because effectiveness of pain remedies is primarily measured by asking patients "how much pain are you in?"
Second, you assert that because the data isn't perfect, we can't draw any conclusions from it. People, including legislators, must often make decisions based on imperfect data. They shouldn't outright ignore everything available simply because causation wasn't shown directly in a double blind, 8-sigma trial, with results measured directly by devices without human intervention. My claim that sex with children harms them significantly is justified given available evidence, and banning such sex is prudent as a result.
Why is it subjective? True, if I try to list a complete deductive argument, there will be assertions like "condemnation without justification is erroneous" (for the first) and "you should, in the absensce of other concerns, avoid actions which cause significant harm," and I won't have deductive reasons for them. However, since, as far as I can tell, these broad claims impress themselves upon me from my core construction as a human being, and since other human beings seem to share many core aspects in common, I have a reasonable expectation of universality. So I ask, why do you think claims like this are subjective?
As a side note, I dare someone to find me an example of a person who simultaneously holds that homosexuality is wrong and that ethical systems are subjective. Seriously.
In post 47703383, an ancestor of your post, I wrote
...for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.
You can see my confusion when you write things like
you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs
I'm not arguing from an appeal to authority. I'm not arguing from an appeal to emotion. My argument, as I've made it in this discussion, is
I'm not trying to censor anyone, or claim any authority. My argument is about what people should do. In particular, it's about what you shouldn't do, not about what I should or shouldn't do to stop you. There is no implied suppression of your rights to free speech.
Get over your jurisdictional objection, already. I'm allowed to challenge you on your beliefs about homosexuality on the internet. Do you have anything substantive to say?
You're at Witt's End.