<blockquote>
  <p><em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell%27s_rule" rel="nofollow"><strong>Cromwell's rule</strong></a> : "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may
  be mistaken."</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This wise rule (modernized perhaps by substituting "probable" for "possible", and maybe changing the gory religious reference), should have been all along supplementing the SE-wide catch-phrase and policy <strong>"Be Nice".</strong></p>

<p>Now, "Be Nice" is more wide-reaching that it appears: it essentially asks from us to <em>think</em> nicely, rather than only <em>speak</em> nicely.</p>

<p>But for the less-sensitive to polite suggestions, Cromwell's rule implies "don't transmit an <em>objective</em> sense of certainty when there isn't one".  </p>

<p>And I believe that the comment that led to this meta-question violates exactly that: it transmits a sense of objective certainty -when there is none. It speaks as though the "unscientific nature of this field" is as widely accepted as the movement of earth around the sun. And it isn't (that's easily verifiable).</p>

<p>If it was something along the lines of  </p>

<p><em>"I am not yet persuaded whether psychology is truly a scientific discipline or not, and I know that many other people share these doubts. The adoption of statistical tools may have provided a false sense of "scientific status" to psychologists themselves, leading them to not worry enough -and not work enough on- the scientific foundations of their field. So maybe a move away from such tools, which moreover appear to have been misused, may be beneficial after all"</em>,  </p>

<p>I conjecture that the OP would not feel the way he felt with the actually posted comment.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the comment does violate the Cross-Validated <em>culture</em>, if not the SE <em>rules</em>. But then, this does not make "deletion" the only route that should be taken. After all, I have to, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that I may be mistaken.</p>
