I don't know if they're the worst, but psychology certainly is one of the first fields that pops into my head when we talk about hard to replicate results. I find it incredibly ironic that the results that they may or may not have found are now used as an argument in favour of changing actual science.

Psychologists are stretching the scientific method to its limits. They are forced to do it due to nature of the target of their research. Scientific method was developed mainly by a physicists who works with a less complex systems. It was adopted then to a chemistry and even biology. But psychology needs more adoptation.

So the answer is yes. They are using scientific method and they are constantly inventing new scientific tools. Physicists tell us that philosophy is dead[1], but it is just because philosophy is dead in physics: physics research now is a settled technology, while psychology needs more powerful methods which do not exist yet. So psychology is searching for this methods and philosophy now lives in the domain of psychology, not in physics.

The funny conicidence: when I searched ddg for reference of Hawking using "philosiphy is dead" as a search term, the first search result led me to news about Hawking, the second to some philosopher who didn't agree, the third one led to Psychology Today, where cognitive scientist argued against Hawking.[2] Though I see his argument as overcomplicated shot in the blue: it is pointless to agrue that physics and philosophy have something in common in the present times.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephe... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201011...

The fact that they know there's an issue with replication suggests they're using the scientific method. Their experimental design might need work, but they're working within a scientific framework.