As for "additional support from the community" that's not the solution -- it's the problem. Almost by definition, "the community" isn't qualified to support the paper; only to advocate for their preferred actions.
For the second part, they were talking about the scientific community, supporting the paper by reproducing results. Not regular Joes saying "I support this paper" or whatever, if that's what you were thinking.
"However, there is no such thing as one paper that needs zero additional support from the community."
If you meant "scientific community" then I have no issues. I was reacting to all the "The Science is settled!" articles during the pandemic by people from outside it.
Human psychology is a messy business, but when research is conducted earnestly and rigorously according to the scientific method then it is science by definition.
You can find a discipline problematic and unworthy of your interest without actively gatekeeping it, by the way.
Such patronizing. Unworthy of a real scientist.
When their "experiments" generally don't replicate, then it's not a science. Maybe similar to Colbert's word "truthy," what psychologists do is sciencey.