>I don't understand what is wrong with their methodology as described in this article that makes it junk science.
There is nothing wrong with this article and their methodology because it's not about real science at all. Science produces models, with predictability (among other things) where you or I could go out and get the same results. That is far from what Google has actually demonstrated - and I don't know whether they intended to do that in the first place.
Psychology has never been accepted as a science because they don't produce accurate, reproducible models. I don't want to sound rude, but all this stuff isn't exactly new and can be searched for online. A random set of links from 10 seconds of googling:
No rudeness taken; I just would rather people making the claims to have some links for people who don't really search for the reciprocity of fields of pseudoscience/science.
What would you call this thing in the article that people did then? Statistical analysis?
There is nothing wrong with this article and their methodology because it's not about real science at all. Science produces models, with predictability (among other things) where you or I could go out and get the same results. That is far from what Google has actually demonstrated - and I don't know whether they intended to do that in the first place.
Psychology has never been accepted as a science because they don't produce accurate, reproducible models. I don't want to sound rude, but all this stuff isn't exactly new and can be searched for online. A random set of links from 10 seconds of googling:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delive...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects...
http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/05/failing-to-rep...