Here which, is of course, written by a social scientist in what I can only assume is in a postmodernist self-demonstrating style. The basic thrust of his so-called argument is that social science as a whole is to politically comprised with explicit ideological bias to participate in a political march under the assumption (not empirically tested) that this will damage the goals of the march. There is a couple claims I'd like to take out and look at the basic assumptions and see why they are silly.

1) 'there is very little political and ideological diversity in the social sciences'

In so much as this is true, this true for all scientific fields--educated individuals in general tend to more progressive. Now the assumptions here because social scientists study more explicitly political material it is somehow more open to unscientific practices because of this, and that science in general can only be done well by people who are perfectly neutral observers who are detached from their work. Mostly I find these claim to be incoherent this the rest of his post. He's worried about political bias, and his solution to this is to introduce more but different political bias into the process. This 'solution' doesn't solve the problem he's apparently so worried about, and is mostly just a bunch of whining about there being to many Marxists.

2) 'The truth is, some social scientists, though certainly not all of them, and many social activists and journalists have weaponized the social sciences for ideological warfare,'

So have biologists, climate scientists, ecologists, and so on. This claim assumes that 'ideological warfare' is a) unique to the practice of social science, and is b) somehow uniquely different from the intellectual battles fought in other sciences. String theory is a complex mathematical theory of how the universe works and has been the cause of controversy is physics for a long time. Individuals that study string theory have a great explicit bias toward it, and those who don't have a great explicit bias against. If either of these biases are justified I can't say but they are biases that effect there work. This is no different for social scientists, save what we study are more openly political (or, you know, actually matter). How this will negatively effect the march I have no idea, he never really states beyond the vague implications that a lot of social science isn't really science because --insert vague attacks on non-empiricists--.

3) 'Take, for instance, the field of sociology. There are certainly many empirical sociologists doing high quality empirical research. However, a sizable part of the discipline is part of the postmodern or social constructionist movement that rejects the use of quantitative methods.'

And finally we get to the part where a psychologist once again demonstrates his lack of knowledge of sociology, and because of that vague attacks the entire field as if the did understand it. His arguments really do come of as hysterical Science Wars drama than anything of subsistence. Postmodernism, on a whole, is not an easy thing to pin down into a cohesive whole, and often is just a label used by individuals who want to attack ideas they don't like, but here I'm going to assume he's specifically talking about STS scholars like Bruno Latour. Most STS (and the general field of sociology of scientific knowledge), while not quantitative heavy is a descriptive study of the human action of doing science, not 'anti-science'. Saying that a scientist is biased toward a certain conclusion is not 'anti-science', nor is using qualitative methods. This is not a rejection of these other methods but a critical examination of the set of assumptions that go into those methods. His 'evidence' for this claim is a twitter account--not really important but I just thought I'd point it out.

I've not empirically study this, nor have a made a complex mathematical model, but neither did he so there we go.