This state of affairs is completely arse backwards. In hard sciences, where direct quantitative measurement is made (e.g. the sulfur isotopic composition of a mineral in a rock), those measurements, and details of how they were made are published in the paper. If you have the paper you have the data.
How is it that 'sciences' that do not make direct measurements, and instead rely on statistical analysis to separate weak signals from noise in very very indirect measurements can get away _without_ publishing raw data? The burden of proof must be higher for such weak signals, and that must include the raw data (e.g. all the survey results). I am unsurprised people get away with making shit up in these disciplines if we esentially are taking their word for it.
How is it that 'sciences' that do not make direct measurements, and instead rely on statistical analysis to separate weak signals from noise in very very indirect measurements can get away _without_ publishing raw data? The burden of proof must be higher for such weak signals, and that must include the raw data (e.g. all the survey results). I am unsurprised people get away with making shit up in these disciplines if we esentially are taking their word for it.