Kahneman's book is based on a myriad of sources and covers enormous ground. He enumerates dozens of patterns of human thought, all supported by studies.
Furthermore, the book is clear that System 1/System 2 distinction is an imperfect model.
I'm sure the field of psychology has made progress since Think Fast and Slow was published, but it feels weird to use the word "debunk" to refer to a book that was scientifically accurate at some point in time.
It's a coarse, hand-wavy model that had no neurological underpinning at the time. It does have merit: it can explain some phenomena and brought it to the attention of a wider audience that the human mind isn't really logical or rational, and that you should think twice before making a decision. But it's never been "accurate".
> I'm sure the field of psychology has made progress
I doubt it. The "myriad of sources" you mention probably include a large number of papers that cannot be replicated, or have been refuted in other papers, or whose conclusions were much broader than the experiments warranted. That's a very common pattern in psychology. It doesn't seem to be able to progress beyond that.
From my own area of expertise: it's 90 years ago that Stroop found that naming a color is more difficult if the word is the name of one color, but the word is written in another color. This study hasn't only been confirmed thousands of times, it's easy to note when you do it yourself. Despite an immense amount of studies into this particular phenomenon, and all potential brain processes around it, and despite the fact that it's a very reliable and large effect (500ms), there is no deeply grounded explanation beyond "there's interference." The complexity of the mind is simply too large to understand even the process of reading a word and pronouncing it in detail.
Isn't the problem with phrenology not just that it's wrong but that it has no predictive value at all? So it's no more scientifically accurate than just picking at random.
Whereas say Phlogiston isn't real, but if your world model has Phlogiston to explain combustion, you can predict some things more effectively than random. A Phlogiston model is clearly better than no model -- it's just that if you take all the Phlogiston out and put Oxygen elsewhere (most obviously, in air) your model works better and a bunch of previously astonishing things now make sense because Oxygen is real and Phlogiston isn't.
> Popular dual-process models of thinking have long conceived intuition and deliberation as two qualitatively different processes. Single-process-model proponents claim that the difference is a matter of degree and not of kind. Psychologists have been debating the dual-process/single-process question for at least 30 years. In the present article, I argue that it is time to leave the debate behind. I present a critical evaluation of the key arguments and critiques and show that—contra both dual- and single-model proponents—there is currently no good evidence that allows one to decide the debate. Moreover, I clarify that even if the debate were to be solved, it would be irrelevant for psychologists because it does not advance the understanding of the processing mechanisms underlying human thinking.
