I can't think of an example, although there may be some out there.
It is the abysmally unconvincing get-out-of-jail-free card that has been helicopter dropped on people who would rather just not entertain an argument.
The word is used to mean a couple things in different contexts, of course. If you use it to mean that it's problematic to apply methods that other people use for other problems to humans, you're just wrong. If you use it to criticize people who apply certain methods to studying humans simply because of the glamor those methods are bestowed with by being used by natural scientists too, then that's a fine criticism if such a person existed, but I doubt there's anyone on the planet that actually uses those methods for that reason. Certainly that's not why most people use those methods.
And if you use the term to claim that people who clearly have relevance to the conversation have no business talking about it based on what they've learned, then you seem to be using it just because you don't want to have the conversation.
The genesis of social cycle theories
1 hour ago