why do i often see psychology called a pseudo-science?
what exactly makes it less legitimate than "real" sciences?
It's more abstracted from hard facts
Psychology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics
Do you understand how the Pythagoras theorem always works? Well that's how you do real science you know exactly when something works or not. But in psychology they are not rigorous about it. Technically it could be a science but the people that do that stuff are shit so their stuff is shit.
Something similar happens with biology. But they have gotten so much better. But they used to be really bad.
>>25441208
>Do you understand how the Pythagoras theorem always works?
Mathematics is not science.
Most of it is based on conjecture.
Most "mental disorders" aren't actually quantifiable, in the sense that you can get a readout from a machine and say "Yep, she's got borderline personality disorder."
It's very subjective, is the main crux of the issue.
>>25441244
replying in before the shitstorm
i was here first
>>25441287
they're right though
Empirical scientific research is almost nothing like proving theorems
>>25441287
Certain fields of "applied Mathematics" are vaguely scientific, but the majority of it is intellectual masturbation or a tool to assist with actual science.
>>25441256
this basically
Due to it's nature it's very hard to gather objective data and so one must rely on much more subjective and wide scale evidence to form theories. not to mention the fact that many psychological "theories" are literally just conjecture (but then again, they may still be valid as a way of considering the subject, rather than an attempt to be objectively correct.
Although this is beginning to change with recent advances in neuroscience and the emerging field of neuro-psychology, which is allowing us to begin to actually gather objective data about the bio mechanical function of the brain and how it relates to various subjective effects on consciousness.
>>25441141
most close-minded overweight STEM fedoratipper neckbeards, epsecially here, just can't handle the fact that something like "soft sciences" exists, mostly because of personal bias and because they are not passionate and not knowledgable about these things. just ignore them. debating with them is a waste of time.
>>25441767
as >>25441413 pointed out soon enough psychology is going to come under the bounds of neuroscience and will be able to be objectively monitored and measured like any other biological sciencetry harder
>>25441767
>soft sciences
soft science doesn't exist, you retard.
Either the methodology works or it doesn't it.
Science is a technique, it's not a descriptor.
>>25442579
>Science is a technique, it's not a descriptor.
Exactly, and it can be much easier applied to some fields than others.
Take physics or chemistry, in which a situation laid out exactly the same will (discounting the quantum world) give the same results, and hence these observations can be relatively easily compiled into theories that will predict and explain future results.
Not consider something like psychology, in which any data gathered is much more subjective, and is far less likely to be repeatable. You perform an experiment on a group of people, and you might get an utterly different result from the exact same methodology performed on a different group, or hell, even the same group at a different time. It's this level of variability and difficulty in gathering hard data, instead relying on general trends, that causes many people t refer to psychology as a "soft science"
>>25441767
>"soft sciences"
Soft sciences are the realm of politicians and hucksters. The distrust is more than merited.
>>25441141
Why would you post a picture of gummy bears for this topic?
>>25441767
>"soft sciences"
Literally an oxymoron.
But I guess anyone who dares speak against:
>muh sob story
>muh depression
>muh anxiety
is an overweight neckbeard.
>>25441141
It rarely uses the scientific method.
>>25443039
>rarely
never
Because it tends to be really hard to gather objective data that can be used to form real theories.
It's certainly a valid field, and advances in it help better our understanding and treatment of things like that, but to call it a true science is a bit of a stretch. (unless you coun't neuropsychology)
>>25441256
This.
You can pretty much diagnose anyone with anything if you really tried.
>>25441141
Psychology is more similar to religion than science.
>>25443061
eh, it can, but as people have said it's used in a much looser sense and refers to general trends rather than definite results.
>>25443098
>You can pretty much diagnose anyone with anything if you really tried.
You don't even really have to try that hard. You just do whatever makes you money and have the whole psychology/academia/pharmaceutical industry circle the wagons if anyone challenges you.
Where do you think SJWs learned their tactics from?
>>25441208
Not really. There are outliers in most forms of science
>>25443142
>it's used in a much looser sense and refers to general trends rather than definite results.
than it's not the scientific method.
muh observations if u can c it it werks
>>25441208
>empiricists believe they know or can know everything
Psychology is the science of selling people hot air for $100hr.
Because people are dumb and believe that Psychology ONLY consists of the Clinical field, ignoring other fields such as Experimental Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Neuropsychology, so on and so forth. Also, I guess these same people believe that any Psychology studies are purely fabricated and made-up, ignoring statistics and/or other results from anything.
>>25443202
How is it not? The scientific method is the use of observations and evidence to form theories about things, why does that exclude the use of general overarching trends used to describe complex, variable processes? It's not like you can use "true" science on the topic in any meaningful way, so the next best thing is to make general observations since attempts of definitive ones prove useless (unless you count neuro-psychology, but that's a very new field)
>>25443287
>muh subdivisions of bullshit
Because social sciences are notoriously hard to replicate which is a foundation of the scientifc method.
Add to that the fact that it's completely infiltrated with liberals who just twist studies to say whatever they want - and the rest of the fucking field accepts that without the much needed scrutiny - and you have one big pseudoscience.
psychology is applied biology
biology is applied chemistry
chemistry is applied physics.
physics are applied math.
top to bottom, from least pure science to most pure.
>>25443319
Because there are no quantifiable tests in psychology, thus resulting in no quantifiable evidence. Psychology is literally rhetorical.
>>25443326
>I don't know what neuropsychology is
It's the only field like that that can be called a hard science, it's just very new. Pretty soon it will be much more impactful in the field as a whole.
>>25443370
>Add to that the fact that it's completely infiltrated with liberals
Not only liberals, but lawyers. If you have enough money, you can find an expert to testify to anything that isn't absolutely quantifiable, and construct studies to 'prove' it.
>>25443391
How are statistics of trends in test results not quantified data? I'm not saying it's anything close to a hard science, but it is still science.
And as I've said, unless you're talking about neuropsychology, which is actually objective and quantifiable and is set to be the fastest growing recent field.
>>25443391
So is empiricism as a whole you moron, it presumes itself and method to be true and proceeds from there.
Laymen don't even understand what they defend.
>>25443392
>called a hard science
lol
PUHleze. It's all theories and hypothesis.
>>25443387
Mathematics is just applied philosophy :^)
>>25443392
>responding to it
Don't feed it, silly baka.
>>25443447
>I'm not saying it's anything close to a hard science, but it is still science.
Lol, nope. Studies, statistics and trends are easily manipulated, and regularly are.
>>25443453
>So is empiricism as a whole
Yeah, and it's NOT a science.
>>25443476
>It's all theories and hypothesis.
uh, as opposed to any other science?to clarify, you realize that "neuropsychology" is the use of modern brain scanning and detection techniques to relate quantifiable, biomechanical processes in the brain to their corresponding subjective cognitive effects, right? It's not "psychology" as it's been known for decades, it's a very new and fast growing field which's cutting edge is directly tied to the level of technology available,
>>25443392
>neuropsychology
lol, that's what trannies are cling to as actual science these days.
>>25443447
You and everybody else here are misusing 'objective'. See: >>25443453
It cannot be objective if it presumes itself true.
>>25443487
So is everything and itself, despite what the engineering undergrads in this thread will say.
>>25443550
Empiricism is the core philosophy of science you moron. It is literally metascience and the science of science.
>>25443526
>Studies, statistics and trends are easily manipulated, and regularly are.
and? how are they any less easily manipulated than studies done in any hard science? are you really implying that there is more direct lobbying and manipulation of mental health data than there is of say, climate change or fossil fuel data?
What you've said has literally no bearing on whether a subject is a "science" or not. All that matters is whether it involves the application of the scientific method, which is does.
>>25443555
>uh, as opposed to any other science?
Except tin real sciences theories can be tested and proven.
Because there's plenty of subjectivity to the study. Science is meant to be falsifiable and objective.
>amount of time and effort it takes to become a surgeon
>amount of time and effort it takes to become a therapist
aint hard to tell
>>25441287
Math is a tool scientists use, it's not a science itself.
>>25443619
See: >>25443586 (1st)
>>25443612
Now you're misusing 'proven'; >>25443643 And you're misusing 'science'.
>>25443637
It takes more time to be a monk than it does a physicist. Does that mean they're more scientific/smarter than both of your examples?
>>25443607
Lol, please.You can not apply the scientific method without quantifiable results. Without quantifiable results it's literally rhetoric.
This guy >>25443237, pretty much nailed it.
>>25443707
No it doesn't. You can be a monk in two years. The example was meant to be humorous anyway.
But sure Mr.Therapist, you're the same thing as an MD, not a used car salesmen or anything.
>>25443691
Do you know what the word "objective" means?
Protip: It's not a synonym of empirical.
>>25443550
>Yeah, and it's NOT a science.
Empiricism is science.
All of science.
>>25443808
>Empiricism
Empiricism is a theory.
You charlatans like to play with semantics as much as sociologists.
Wonder why?
kek
>>25443555
Cog Psych itself does the same thing. I imagine Behavioral Neuroscience (formerly Biopsych) would too. Neuropsych is a thing, sure--mostly neuroscience itself--but it's not as if it's the first Psychology field to use such measures.
>>25443847
>play with
No, philosophy strives to be as accurate as possible.
>Empiricism is a theory
Yes, a philosophical theory.
Those usually refer to systems of thought that can be applied.
It's called pseudo science because its theories are typically not empirically verifiable in controlled environments, and measurements are typically very difficult to make. For example, to get diagnosed with autism, your behavior must match a minimum of X out of Y symptoms. First of all, how do we know that autism is defined by these symptoms, and by these symptoms alone? Secondly, even if we find a perfect definition of autism (which is impossible, so to speak, seeing that autism exists on a spectrum), how are we supposed to measure those criteria in subjects? How do you quantify and measure behavior? And is behavior enough; ought we not to take into consideration how people think and feel? But how are we supposed to measure their thoughts and feelings in quantifiable, comparable measures?
Third and perhaps most important: It is difficult to explain causes in psychology because experiments on humans are ethically restricted. For example, psychologists have reason to believe that being molested as a child will have a negative impact on one's psychological development. Meanwhile, none will permit molestation experiments in order to empirically prove such a causation. Thus many psychological theories are supported primarily by observing correlations, without possibility to draw conclusions regarding causation.
A very good example, in my opinion, of the pseudo science nature of psychology is pedagogy. How to children learn new material? Instead of providing students with an answer, textbooks by a hundred different pedagogues offer a hundred different explanations, and most of the time, everyone has valid points, and all the aspects of learning that they analyze must be taken into consideration in order to understand the process thoroughly.
Psychologists are very well aware of these limitations, and part of their studies and work deals with trying to improve their field of science so that their theories can be verified.
>>25443707
Yes, in most cases unless you're being solipsistic about your definitions. In that case, you have no grasp of any formal logic and ought to remain silent. Most scientists are in-fact extremely unscientific and are only classifiable as intelligent under a solipsist's definition.
>>25443722
I've already set that empiricism is rhetoric; stop being disingenuous by stating otherwise.
>>25443801
I never said it is, can't you read? Go ahead and find the common definition of 'empiricism' and 'objective', apply my statement to both and see that it only applies to the former.
>>25443808
Kiddies don't get that 'science' is essentially a connotated synonym of 'praxis'.
>>25443847
It's the science of science.
>semantics is bad
we dun need no absolute definitions all that mattr is we dun look smert!
Calm that arrogance down son.
>INTT: Angry teenagers discussing matters they don't even comprehend
Neuropsychology is the same as MD, regarding the investment and validity, you cockmonglers.
>>25443555
Is psychology real?
>neuropsychology
Way to completely change the subject anon. Apples and oranges.
>>25443287
To be fair, clinical psychology is the only kind the vast majority of people will ever have contact with, and it's the one in question when people are debating making use of it. Nobody argues about research psychology and the like, it's always about "should I go see a pshrink?"
>>25443985
Science is objective. That means it's impartial, unbiased, not based on your personal feelings or beliefs. Are you seriously going to try and argue science isn't meant to be objective?
And yes, that's exactly what you're saying since you linked me to a post that says, and I'll just quote so you can't back pedal.
>You and everybody else here are misusing 'objective'.
>>25444073
>it's the one in question when people are debating making use of it
I wish it were that easy to assume but even as evidenced by this thread, people think Clinical encompasses the entire field and that is ALL Psychology consists of. Multiple people share this incorrect outlook in the real world as well.
I do agree with you on the former claim, though.
I don't really get why psychology instigates so many hot opinions. I know it's a meme to call mental disorders "meme disorders" and the like, but to completely write off an entire field of study (that has helped people) simply because muh feels just seems...stupid.
Neuropsychology is just another branch of psychology. It's more bullshit. It's a pseudo-science. It occasionally overlaps with things like Neurology and Psychiatry, but it's no science.
>>25444123
>That means it's impartial, unbiased, not based on your personal feelings or beliefs
Science is a method, it's a cultural technique.
Science is not objective.
It is limited by what the person conducting science can perceive and what the person believes.
>>25444177
Most people think psychology is still Freudian stuff.
>>25444177
It's funny. People disregard psychology because it's just "muh feels," but their reasoning for doing so is based on "muh feels," as well.
>>25444177
Because since psychology is subjective, it is thus manipulable and able to be used by various groups to further their own agendas.
Politicians, academics, lawyers, SJWs, NEETs, people on disability etc. etc., cling to this subjective unprovable pseudo-science like moths to a flame.
>>25444123
>science is [...] not based on your personal feelings or beliefs
Is that so now?
What if I say I don't believe that atoms exist, when I am a chemist?
Isn't that going to influence my scientific research greatly?
>>25441141
Because people think of freud when you say psychology when really its to do with chemicals in the brain
>>25444242
>tfw seeing someone namedrop Freud in a Psych discussion a few weeks ago
>Freud himself nor any of his relevant topics were even mentioned or alluded to
It's like people use his name to pretend they know what they're talking about which immediately ousts them.
>>25444215
>Science is a method, it's a cultural technique.
Really? Hg + O2 -> is a cultural technique?
kek
Academia in 2016.
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT
>>25443982
Science is a set of knowledge of different praxes of a relevant field. e.g. of natural science and its subsets (physics, chemistry), or rational science and its subsets (mathematics, analytical philosophy), or social science (phenomenology, a good bit of history, language.)
>>25444123
Incorrect, it assumes its own thesis to be true, it cannot be objective since it in in fact does not fit any of the three qualifiers you stated.
>Are you seriously going to try and argue science isn't meant to be objective?
It isn't, I've no need to argue since I am absolutely right.
All praxes must presume its thesis to be true to be applied, otherwise it would remain theory.
>>25444302
All sciences are subjective, stop being disingenuous.
Now dearies, be good boys while I go mop. I hope my lessons have made you less of dogmatic laymen.
t. somebody actually employed in the sciences.
>>25444215
>Science is a method, it's a cultural technique.
>Science is not objective.
Lol, total liberal move.
>We'll just change the definition of 'science'.
>>25444387
>t. somebody actually employed in the sciences.
Social sciences are barely science.
>>25444421
Have you actually never heard of "the scientific method"? That's all science is, the application of a method that requires one to make many arbitrary assumptions for it to be valid. Science may aim to be as objective as possible, but it is by no means in itself
>>25444383
>Hg + O2 ->
Sorry, Hg + O2 -> HgO2
But I forgot that science is subjective now.
>>25444387
>All sciences are subjective
Utter rubbish.
>>25444383
>Really? Hg + O2 -> HgO2is a cultural technique?
What is that supposed to be?
Some kinda reaction equation, it a strange one, considering the orbital configuration of Mercury.
That's not what science is.
>>25444421
Define "science".
Hint: The word sciences is an abbreviation of "scientific fields".
>>25444383
>>25444477
that's not "science" that's just stociometry
science is the process by which you find stociometric solutions/statements
>>25444447
>Social sciences are barely science.
Social Sciences AREN'T science.
>>25444477
Stoichiometry is applied mathematics.
It is not science.
take a look
>>25444421
>Lol, total liberal move.
>>We'll just change the definition of 'science'.
Ding ding ding.
This is how these people make their money.
I promise you, they won't cure anything.
All of their efforts ever combined aren't worth a thimble of penicillin.
Psychology is a real science. At least, it can be, if people do proper research. Making up definitions are not science, that's just arguing semantics, which is probably what people don't like. But you can do real science in psychology.
I want to compare it to gender science/research. I think gender studies are really important, and something society should do, and it's incredibly valueable. That does not, however, mean that gender "scientists" do anything valueable. The field it self has potential for real science, and is something we really need to research, but in its current state, it produces nothing of value whatsoever, and most people who call themselves gender scientists are just useless pieces of shit. There might be a similar situation with psychology, but I think people who research psychology produce more of value than people who research gender.
I think that if a science is more political, it's less likely to do proper science, but that doesn't mean the field itself is of no value, and there might still be done good science.
Let's compare it to ecology, which I think most people agree is a real science. But it has a major problem, and that is that almost everyone who researches it holds the ideological view that all life is valueable. I think there is a lack of willingness to accept that some species have no value, which may inhibit the quality of research, even though a lot of great things are done. But nobody would be willing to do research to question the idea that all species are valueable.
>>25444383
>Really? Hg + O2 -> HgO2 is a cultural technique?
This is information.
Do you know what science would be?
The process of proving that this salt, in that configuration forms every single time you make Mercury react with Oxygen molecules.
>tfw want to talk about MBTI but every time it gets brought up here it leads to either an NT circlejerk, people complaining and comparing it to psychology and / or people who don't understand the cognitive processes
The scientific method as we know it is based on the principle of falsificationism, put forward by Popper, which means that for a hypothesis to be considered true it must be possible to test it in a manner whereby it can be disproved, so if you say whenever my cat is not being observed he is a human it is not scientific, but if you say water always boils at 100 degrees centigrade at room temperature, this can be tested and proved false, so it is scientific. In psychology they cannot falsify their ideas, so it is not scientific.
>>25444783
MBTI is literally dated bullshit, though.
Sorry, nanodesufampai
>>25444783
MBTI was created by two women who believed in astrology and based their ideas on Carl Jung, a man who believed everyone was telepathically connected.
>>25444421
>Lol, total liberal move.
I wish you people would stop associating delusional retardation with politics. The vast majority of active liberals are educated people who base their opinions on empirical evidence, and yet you guys just stick the label on any stupid radical bullshit you find and use it to blast anybody who's part of the rational political left.
>>25444817
>a man who believed everyone was telepathically connected.
How do you know that this is wrong?
It's not pseudoscience.
It's just that it's so predicated upon other, more fundamental forms of science that we aren't nearly advanced enough to come up with a priori theorems (is there a less autistic way of saying that) regarding HOW the brain works. We haven't even figured out neurology all the way. It's like giving a caveman some computer parts and asking him to write MS Office from scratch.
The result is that while psychological research IS science by definition, it's not very useful.
What has psychology given us? Marketing? Great. Other more well understood fields have given us refrigeration, sanitation, vaccination, electricity, locomotion, I could go on all night.
tl;dr we need to work on other shit first or psychology is just ineffective guesswork
>>25444817
>who believed everyone was telepathically connected
That's a fun way to describe collective unconsciousness.
>>25441141
>according to the DSM-V being sad is an illness but having a compulsive urge to cut your own dick off is not.
>according to the DSM-V lobotomies are okay now
>according to the DSM-V Asperger's Syndrome isn't a disease anymore, they did a taksies-backsies like they did with homosexuality and hysteria
Psychology is basically just a bunch of fucks getting together and agreeing on what an illness is, and then using that made up criteria to diagnose people, and then they change that criteria decades later when they realize their made up bullshit was just made up bullshit.
tl;dr: psychology is going to become about as relevant as phrenology once neuroscience can pin down the exact cause of mental disorders.
>>25444859
Fuck off Hume, ya Scottish cunt
>>25444614
Thank you.
It's $$$$$.
It's liberal politicians, academia, lawyers and pharmaceutical companies. Ad their income is dependent on legitimizing this line of bullshit.
B-but
>muh studies
These people have never actually cured ANYTHING and never will.
Jesus Christ, you might as well have your thetans audited while you're at it.
>>25444805
How is it dated? I know the system isn't perfect but it works well for what it tries to achieve.
>>25444817
What ? Who fucking cares? Its fun to think about and without Carl Jung we wouldn't have stuff like Evangelion. Robots get anal about the weirdest things.
>>25444902
>These people have never actually cured ANYTHING and never will
How do you know that?
>>25444844
>The vast majority of active liberals are educated people who base their opinions on empirical evidence
Then why is black lives matter so popular when
1) The vast majority of people killed by police are white
2) 90% of black murder victims are killed by another black
3) Ignoring the fact that for some reason blacks tend to have far more run in with the law than other races
Don't forget the double speak like "progressive" and "political correctness" which are specifically designed to shut down any opposing thoughts. Being educated doesn't mean you are knowledgeable on politics.
>>25444844
>The vast majority of active liberals are educated people who base their opinions on empirical evidence,
Bwhahahaha
>Educated
>social sciences
how tautological.
>>25444941
>proving a negative
How do you know I haven't cured cancer?
>>25444936
http://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/MBTI%20reliability%20validity.pdf
Read this.
psychology is like a shadow of neurology. it isnt real.
>>25444941
I'll wait.
>>25444991
oh
>and never will
nvm
>>25444991
I don't, maybe you have.
>>25445002
How does that mean anything at all right now?
>>25444998
this. it can demonstrate that when X happens, so does Y but it can't explain it.
>>25445025
>How does that mean anything at all right now?
Let me know all the actual aliments psychology has cured.
I'll wait.
>>25444997
Look, I understand that its flaky and unreliable at best and it may not interest you. I know psychology isn't either and there isn't much we understand, which is precisely why I chose not to argue its validity.
BUT ITS FUN! Why do you hate fun?
>>25445091
Because MBTI is misinformation. I don't like misinformation. Yes I know everyone spreads misinformation, but that doesn't mean it should be okay to knowingly do so.
>>25444998
Current Neurology is far from useful.
It's basically "we have this black box, if we put A in, usually X happens, but sometimes Y happens"
>>25445069
You are misunderstanding.
I am not attacking your point itself, I don't care for that.
I am asking why you believe what you believe.
>>25445120
>I am asking why you believe what you believe.
Because I'm not a sucker.
>>25445091
>BUT ITS FUN!
It's vapid.
>>25445149
That doesn't mean anything at all.
Define "sucker".
Explain why buying into the psychological narrative makes you a "sucker".
>>25445118
How is it misinformation?
Because you're thinking of it as a science, where as I think of it more like a way where we describe musical genres ie we know nothing fits perfectly and there will always be variations because humans aren't that simple but when you look at the functions in their simplist form it makes sense. Just look at how so many people here identify with INTJ and how many of them are depressed about their lack of sex and inability to connect with people and it aligns perfectly with their function stack. This board is literally overflowing with inferior Se.
>>25445238
There are better, more reliable ways to pigeonhole yourself into a personality type.
http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
Link related.
>>25445191
If I go into the hospital w/ a broken leg I pay my $ over and against a tangible result.
Psychology is rhetorical theory. It's unprovable, unknowable, and unending. It can diagnose nothing concrete, and cure nothing either. As such it's ripe for interpretation, and therefore corruption. It's ultimately faith based, and thus, for suckers.
>>25441141
Why aren't there sweets in the captcha anymore ?
>>25445327
>If I go into the hospital w/ a broken leg I pay my $ over and against a tangible result.
lmao must suck not having healthcare
>unprovable
Ok, prove that it is unprovable.
>unknowable
This is objectively wrong, no matter how you look at it.
>unending
Arguable.
Assuming that they are telling the truth with ill will towards you involved from anywhere, isn't that quite worrying?
Assuming they are lying, why would you be surprised, a hospital is a business after all is said and done, be they helping people or not?
>It can diagnose nothing concrete, and cure nothing either
How do you know that?
>As such it's ripe for interpretation, and therefore corruption
As opposed to what that isn't.
Science is hardly objective, it is based upon what you believe, after all.
>It's ultimately faith based, and thus, for suckers.
I am not gonna bother with a religious argument, but I'll give you one thing to think about, while you show off your amazing fedoratipping skills:
Can you prove that the universe exists?
If you cannot, but nonetheless believe that it does, why should you not believe in God?
>>25444964
Because Black Lives Matter is a fucking attention whore side group that the Right uses as a straw man to attack liberals with.
Because being a political liberal does not equal being part of the modern American democratic party and all of its kneejerk bullshit.
>>25444965
>social sciences
Completely ignoring the fact that polling has consistently shown that over 50% of actual scientists identify as "Liberal" and/or are Democrats, and less than 10% are "conservative" or Republicans.
You guys throwing a bunch of talking point bullshit around isn't going to get anywhere near me, because I actually formulate my politics through research and logic and not party lines.
>>25445735
>Because Black Lives Matter is a fucking attention whore side group
With overwhelming liberal support. Despite being educated they support a "cause" which is focusing on a non-issue symptom of a much larger problem.
>Because being a political liberal does not equal being part of the modern American democratic party and all of its kneejerk bullshit.
And why isn't that the same for other ideological groups?
>>25444447
I'm a chemical engineer.
>>25444463
Don't argue with them, establish the truth instead and watch them cwy.
>>25444503
>i sed thing so its true.
By the definitions of both 'science' and 'subjective', science is subjective.
>>25444544
Mathematics are a science.
>>25444630
WERDS R BAD JUST C IF IT WERKS
My goodness, empiricists are ignorant.
>>25444802
That's not science; redefining science is fallacious.
>>25444817
We are connected through.
>>25444936
Jung based his system off of Eastern (including Abrahamic) mysticism.
>>25445164
So is all science, get with the program.
>>25445327
Sweetie, I already stated that science as a whole is rhetorical.
>It's unprovable, unknowable, and unending.
So is everything.
>It's ultimately faith based, and thus, for suckers.
Everybody has faiths, the difference between mine and yours is that mine are concrete and only based off of one assumption, while yours are based off of infinite assumptions.
>>25445735
Everybody in America is a liberal, and thereby right-wing.
My goodness, every side in this thread is wrong. I am literally the only scientific one here, and I'm actively dragging it through the mud.
>>25445735
>Completely ignoring the fact that polling has consistently shown that over 50% of actual scientists identify as "Liberal" and/or are Democrats, and less than 10% are "conservative" or Republicans.
Not even him, but here you go again with the fallacy that if you're educated that MUST mean you are knowledgeable about politics. The two aren't exclusive.
I don't have a source but I heard somewhere that over 70% of psychology "experiments" are not repeatable. The scientific method relies on data that can be replicated.
>>25445889
mathematics are not a science.
>>25445889
>We are connected through.
Just so we're clear, I said "telepathically connected". Are you still going to say that's true?
>>25445889
>Mathematics are a science.
You're clearly not a chemical engineer then.
>>25445946
Prove that it is not true, then.
Think about the internet and dank-ass memes, before you try, though.
>>25445524
Academia in 2016, the post.
just sh
>>25441141
It doesn't have any scientific theory (like say Theory of Gravity). This makes it a non-science. They don't even have an approximate model of the thing they are studying (human mind).
>>25446007
Would be the same in every other year.
How is questioning what you say wrong?
>>25444902
>These people have never actually cured ANYTHING and never will.
They'll keep talking and talking, and spinning an d spinning, but that's all the truth anyone with any sense really needs.
>>25446005
Burden of proof is on you. Internet is not telepathic.
>>25446040
>approximate model
>scientific theory
Definitions please.
Besides, Gravity obviously doesn't exist.
>>25446101
His entire field can't actually PROVE anything. All they can do is play semantic shell games. And they'll slander you if you point that out. It's Huckster 101. How is the psychology industry different than say Scientology again?
>>25445944
They are by the definition of science that isn't solipsistic.
>>25445946
I cannot state such things to be anything, I was attempting rhetoric to provide an experiential and involved logical conclusion.
>>25445963
I am, just not a dumb undergrad like you.
How about you actually search for the non-solipsistic definition of 'science'.
>>25446007
>DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING OR USE ANY LOGIC JUST ACCEPT MY DOGMA
lolpositivists.
>>25446040
Somebody doesn't know what science is, and simply name-calls theories. There are countless theories of gravity.
>>25446101
>burden of proof
Defend this, or remain silent.
Why do people think they can just say things?
>>25446105
omg why semantics u just gotta C it
>>25445937
One of the major problems is ethics committees that forbid studies that can actually replicate it. Want to try to replicate Milgrams original study? What about Zimbardo's prison study? Or why not Little Albert? HA! Good luck with that. They're all studies that can be easily replicable, but not able to because you'd have to mess around too much with the methodology to the point where you're not measuring the same variables. That is, it's nowhere near the original experiment.
>>25446186
Funny how you have to fall back to baiting people.
>>25446186
>>DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING OR USE ANY LOGIC JUST ACCEPT MY DOGMA
You're using circular logic, and dishonest questions.
Again, name me one concrete thing psychology has discovered, or one concrete ailment it has cured.
You can't.
When you can we'll renew an earnest discussion.
>>25445866
There are a bunch of layers to this whole issue.
One is that the portrayal of BLM that liberals get presented with is very different from what the right is shown. I'm not even going to try and go into which side is correct.
Secondly is that they're actually not that actively on the liberal radar, I hear about them almost exclusively from conservative sources. I think the "overwhelming liberal support" just consists of people saying "cops shooting innocent people sucks, they should stop doing that."
>And why isn't that the same for other ideological groups?
It's absolutely the same. I respect somebody who does the same kind of analysis I do and comes up with a different conclusion. I just find them very rarely, on either side of the argument.
>>25445914
I still trust people who are educated over people who are not. If nothing else, it says they have a minimum degree of literacy, they've been educated in history and the American political system, and have been through some level of logic and debate training.
Scientists in particular are people who have shown a tendency to research things and draw logical conclusions from them.
Correlation is not causation, but it's not meaningless either, and there is significance to the fact that scientists lean left.
Of course, part of that is that so much of the right-wing party line is predicated on denying science.
>>25441141
e-sports is to sports as psychology is to science.
>>25445889
>Jung based his system off of Eastern (including Abrahamic) mysticism.
That's pretty cool desu.
>>25446101
How is the burden of proof relevant?
Please just leave this aside or I'll have to ask you to prove that it is possible to have this argument at all.
These qualifications are nothing special by the way, just that you and I actually exist and that what I read is the same as what you sent and vice versa.
>>25446105
From wikipedia:
> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.
Basically the issue is that most of the stuff you find in the field isn't even testable much less predictive. For example some psychologists show up and claim that people can be split into 16 different personality categories. Can we test if that's true, how do we prove it? As for predictions, if I have a person that is an INTJ, what can I predict? Nothing.
There's loads of hypothesis from different psychologists, different schools of thought and their validity is up in the air, it depends on who you ask about them.
>>25446377
Now it's just sad.
>>25446402
I think the biggest problem with psychology is that people are not consistent.
Much of psychology seems to follow the scientific method, but unlike with physics or chemistry, the same thing is not going to same the way for different people or even twice for the same person.
The results may be useful stuff that actually helps some small sub-group, but I think there's a lot of inflation of the utility of a lot of their studies and procedures.
>>25441183
Physics is largely based on numbers. If you really think about it, numbers are largely abstract.
>>25446180
Nothing and nobody can prove anything, proof is an ideology used by trolls such as yourself and actual positivists to avoid using any form of logic.
Things can be shown to be true or absolute, but that's entirely different.
>>25446261
>i dont want to think, better call him a troll
Aren't empiricists supposed to be skepticists?
>>25446302
>You're using circular logic,
Why is circular logic bad, it's unbelievably powerful.
>and dishonest questions.
None of my statements are based upon rhetoric, the rhetoric is simply flavor.
>Again, name me one concrete thing psychology has discovered, or one concrete ailment it has cured.
Why are either of these things good or constitute of science? (they aren't by the way, more solipsism on your side.)
Why do you believe your brand of empiricism has 'discovered' anything?
Why do you believe discovery is possible?IDEOLOGY
>When you can we'll renew an earnest discussion.
Ultimate "i dont understand formal logic" post.
This isn't even my final form son, want me to turn on the gas and start arguing from positives rather than negatives?
>>25446347
It is.
>>25446377
Don't ask them to use anything but their meme-logic, undergrads don't know how to.
>>25446464
Why is that a problem, it's just more variables that need to be reduced.
>>25441183
Somehow I missed this post:
Facts aren't real.
>>25446464
I know. I know they are trying to be scientific, but if they cannot produce results, it just isn't science. Their field of study is too complex for current state of the art to produce scientific results. But that's no excuse to ignore what is a science.
>>25446464
>The results may be useful stuff that actually helps some small sub-group, but I think there's a lot of inflation of the utility of a lot of their studies and procedures.
A lot of inflation? Try ALL inflation. The entire field of psychology could not actually prove the utility of anything it has ever done. It's rhetoric on rhetoric on rhetoric.
>>25446556
>Nothing and nobody can prove anything, proof is an ideology used by trolls such as yourself and actual positivists to avoid using any form of logic.
They can prove a broken leg healed. But keep talking huckster.
>>25446587
>i don't know what science is: the post
See: any of my posts.
>>25446603
Stop trolling, I've aleady es
>>25446630
That's not proof, that's an observation.
Which requires a specific theory to be presumed to be true to claimed to be proof.
Which is rhetoric.
You aren't even a good troll, go homu.
>>25446452
I went a bit overboard with the abstractions in an attempt to show you that the burden of proof is a meaningless concept that serves no real purpose except designate a "winner" in arguments here, so how about this this:
Can you construct an experiment that proves that there is a subcoscious telepathic network between all humans?
This is on a purely abstracted level, we are leaving possible results aside for now.
If there is no way to do that, then either this network does not exist or you are not capable of constructing an experiment that can prove the existence of this "network".
Assuming it is not possible to construct such an experiment, it is as reasonable to believe that this networks exists as believing it does not.
>>25446180
>All they can do is play semantic shell games.
lol, and that brings us to this clown: >>25446556
>>25441413
It will never be objective. In psychology you deal with the way people think. Yes, it's all based in chemistry and such but even if you can objectively identify the problem with advanced technology, the causes, problems and solutions can be totally subjective. Some people have an irrational fear of elevators. Some people have PTSD from all sorts of things. There's no real, lasting, objective solution for any of these but THAT also depends on what you define the solution is.
Lastly, psychology deals with the brain, and if we can ever fully understand how brains work then we will come to a point in time where the brain is capable of understanding itself.
>>25446693
Literally all you are doing is playing around with semantics.
>>25446746
No field will ever be objective.
All scientific research is rooted in what you "know" already and therefore subjectively biased.
>>25441141
>why do i often see psychology called a pseudo-science?
People don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to science. I also blame European psychology as it is more philosophical.
>what exactly makes it less legitimate than "real" sciences?
Its dependence on correlation studies although there are several studies using a true experimental design.
>psychology
>based in chemistry
nope
>Some people have PTSD
Not a real disease.
>>25446800
>European psychology as it is more philosophical.
As opposed to American psychology which is based on hard facts?
kek
>>25446693
Didn't even finish the sentence:
I've already established empiricism to be rhetoric
In fact, I do it in the following reply.
>>25446722
No discernable logic in this post.
Try again, you won't succeed because I am infinitely right but you go on ahead anyway.
>WE DUN NEED NO WERDS
>>25446746
Empiricism is inherently subjective, this follows from the definitions of both.
>>25446771
And that is wrong why? I'm fully logically consistent and sound, more so than anybody here; semantics are a key branch of epistemology.
>>25446800
Another person who doesn't know what they're talking about:
Everything is 100% based in philosophy; science has nothing to do with studies.
>>25441141
psychology is about as real as bible studies. If you want to believe, you want to believe. If you don't believe, it's pretty irrelevant.
>>25446918
You missed your calling. You should be a lawyer.
>>25441141
Because it's evolved around treating mental illnesses and it's been pseudo-scientific since its inception regarding those treatments.
>>25446953
>the bible is wrong because i sed so
;^) please try harder.
>>25446993
Nope, that'd imply I support anything entailed by the practice.
>>25447002
Pseudo-science doesn't exist.
>>25446918
The guy who sweeps the floors at the hospital, has contributed more to medicine than people like this ever will.
PhD in billing the insurance company.
>>25441141
Because it is so abstract and cannot be objectively tested.
>>25446895
Maybe, but the Cognitive revolution occurred in America and Behaviorism had major inputs by American psychologists so I think so.
>>25447064
>contributions are good and relevant.
>>25447079
Read the thread, I'm 100% of the content.
>>25446895
Philosophy is meta-science, you are implying that "european psychology", whatever that is is more scientific.
>>25446771
Words have specific meaning.
If they didn't have that, they would be useless to convey concepts.
For example, the word "tree" refers to a concept distinct from the concept the word "bush" describes.
And while these two are similar, they are not the same and it makes a significant difference whether you use one or the other.
>>25446918
>Everything is 100% based in philosophy; science has nothing to do with studies.
Another person who doesn't know what they're talking about. Also, you misread my post. Please learn some methodology before posting.
>>25447244
Bait somewhere else.
>>25447275
Cry harder faggot. This is an anon board dumbshit.
>>25447049
>Pseudo-science doesn't exist.
Brilliant. Yes Anon, Zang-Fu is valid as Botany.
Oh wait, how can we say that if we haven't spent ten years studying the entirety of the possible philosophical platitudes that could potentially be encapsulated in the semantic concept known as 'proof'.
Now where's my grant $.
Brilliant stuff Anon. You're really changing minds.
>>25447168
>hard facts
yeah, didn't think so.
>>25447303
>omg im so triggered
>>25447330
>validity is quantifiable
>>25447365
inb4, huckster Anon gives a lecture on how facts can't exist.
>>25447365
Facts don't exist, hun.
>>25447413
Please learn to argue, my logic is falling on deaf ears.
>>25447330
>Oh wait, how can we say that if we haven't spent ten years studying the entirety of the possible philosophical platitudes that could potentially be encapsulated in the semantic concept known as 'proof'.
Lol. You're beginning to get the idea. Now you see how it works.
>>25446514
>le physics is applied maths meme
>*tips fedora*
>>25447410
Dude if a tree falls in the forest when no one is around does it make a sound?
>>25447365
It is the approach. European psychologist such as Freudian, neo Freudian, and the Jungian school of thought don't use scientific method. Whereas Behaviorist school of thought only relied on observable behavior.
>>25443002
It's a play on words. 'Soft' science. Maybe OP just chose the wrong image.
>>25447413
No need, I'll just ask you to prove that you can know anything at all.
>>25447410
>>omg im so triggered
lol right
>>25447473
Dude, define 'tree'. You can't prove there are trees.
Tenure plz.
>>25447498
You must be a hit at the freshmen dorms.
>>25447473
Ad hoc right here.
>>25447477
The scientific method is wrong though, falls apart under any scrutiny.
>>25447498
This. I don't even need to use any positive logic.
>>25447519
Tree is well-defined, now stop being fallacious.
>>25447473
No.
The sound of a tree falling is a quale.
>>25447565
Has the noble committee come calling yet?
>>25447565
>The scientific method is wrong though, falls apart under any scrutiny.
Please show me.
The real reason is they feel threatened by the implications. What is psychology in 4 words? The study of behavior. That's it, but in order to discredit it they mention sociology, anthropology, and women's studies as if they have anything to do with it.
I got my bachelor's of science in psychology. It's pretty cut and dry. We are the product of the interactions between genetics, environment, and previous experiences. I think it's cool as shit, especially learning and testing. Most people try to write it off as just clinical psychology, or even worse, psychiatry, which aren't really psychology if they don't attribute it to the previously mentioned fields.
It's a young science, but every bit as legitimate as chemistry or physics. We have the coolest experiments too. Who else but a psychologist would think to drown cats, rape monkeys, and electrocute the shit out of dogs just to see if it makes the animal sad?
>>25447616
If your experiment disproves your hypothesis, does that mean that your hypothesis is wrong or that your experimental setup was incapable of proving your hypothesis in the first place?
Can you know which of the two is true?
>I got my bachelor's of science in psychology
>It's a young science, but every bit as legitimate as chemistry or physics.
PUHleeze. Psychologists refuse to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do.
Get back to me when psychology has:
-quantifiability
-clearly defined terminology
-highly controlled experimental conditions -reproducibility
- predictability and testability.
>>25447690
Does it matter? If you fail to prove something you change your hypothesis or your methods until you have something that works. Empiricism isn't everything, but it does what it's meant to do beautifully.
>>25447612
Ad hoc.
>>25447616
It relies on infinite assumptions and thereby has no logical ground.
I only rely on one for this argument to stand, ergo it is infinitely more true.
>>25447690
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Positivist trolls really don't understand epistemology.
>>25447772
Why is 'muh feels' better or more beautiful than absolute truth.
>>25447750
>-clearly defined terminology
OMG FUKKIN SEMANTICS
>>25447750
-quantifiability
-clearly defined terminology
-highly controlled experimental conditions -reproducibility
You can stomp your feet and vomit out as much rhetoric as you like. It's not a science.
-predictability and testability.
>>25441256
Pretty much this. I will admit that it's leagues ahead of sociology.
>>25447750
We already have all that, so hear I am. I only got my bs though. You should really talk to an advisor if you're trying to get into a program. If you're in it because you like people, want to help people, or are interested in mental illness it's not the right field for you.
>>25447750
They already do. Just look at any psychology study in the past few year. Like all scientific studies, it will be under scrutiny of peer review. Therefore, any weakness in the study can be corrected.
>>25447473
Define the sound of a tree falling.
It is not possible to do that, similar to how you can't explain what purple looks like or the way a strawberry tastes.
Therefore the sound of a tree falling is qualia, therefore it does not make a sound when nobody hears it.
>>25447800
>It relies on infinite assumptions
Such as? These assumptions are axioms are they not? They are self-evident.
>>25447866
How do you know that they are?
>>25447866
>self-evident
An assumption.
You aren't even an undergrad, I see.
>>25441244
dude it's an allegory
>>25447800
>Why is 'muh feels' better or more beautiful than absolute truth.
Is that a rhetorical question? I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make. If the scientific method doesn't work for what you're trying to do you use something else. In the overwhelming majority of cases the scientific method should suit you though. I thitthink reason is more prone to error. With the emphasis on peer review and repeatability you have a much higher degree of certainty.
>>25447832
No they don't. How can any experiment be consistently reproducible or provide useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard.
>>25447945
Dude, it's a shitty one.
>>25447913
>>25447919
I just ask for what assumptions are being made.
>>25447954
It doesn't work though, it only assumes it does.
>With the emphasis on peer review and repeatability you have a much higher degree of certainty.
Why?
>>25447979
An infinite number.
>>25447960
>How can any experiment be consistently reproducible or provide useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable?
What terms? You can't dismiss psychology based on a few bad studies.
>And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard.
What about the work of Behaviorist? Or classical conditioning?
>>25447960
You're pulling shit out of your ass. If psychology is so weak you should be able to find examples, recent examples too unless we're allowed to discredit chemistry over the philosophers stonustone and transmutation.
I have an example to look at. Intelligence as tested for in the iq test. It's well defined, results are repeatable, and it has practical applications as a predictive tool for many things. Fucking is another. It's easy to see when an animal fucks another, and many behaviors are repeated, even across species, such as lordosis, mounting, ejaculation, etc. Some are foolishly skeptical of iq, but there's no denying that animals fuck, chances are it's how you got here.
>>25448072
>What terms?
Happy, sad, anxious, depressed etc.. I could go on.
>>25448072
>What about the work of Behaviorist? Or classical conditioning?
They can't accurately predict human behavior with any degree of accuracy and you know it.
>>25448131
Those terms are qualia, though, aren't they?
What else is there to use in their place?
>>25448101
>I have an example to look at. Intelligence as tested for in the iq test. It's well defined, results are repeatable, and it has practical applications as a predictive tool for many things. Fucking is another. It's easy to see when an animal fucks another, and many behaviors are repeated, even across species, such as lordosis, mounting, ejaculation, etc. Some are foolishly skeptical of iq, but there's no denying that animals fuck, chances are it's how you got here.
None of this is science.
>>25448131
You're talking about something else. Psychology describes behavior. I haven't seen them use the words happy, sad, or anxious anywhere except in reference to emotions, which they try to avoid because it's difficult to observe. When we asked for terms we meant psychological terms.
>>25448131
>>What terms?
>Happy, sad, anxious, depressed etc.. I could go on.
Yes, but it can be define such that a quantifiable measurement can be performed.
>They can't accurately predict human behavior with any degree of accuracy and you know it.
Source.
>>25448159
lol, hell no. They are the exact opposite of quantifiable.
'53 inches' is quantifiable. 'Happy' is not.
There are know other terms to use in their place. The cornerstone for which psychology is built upon is relative and subjective. That's why it's not a science.
>>25448166
What do you think science is then? You obviously have a very different conception of it from everyone else in the scientific community.
>>25448101
>I have an example to look at. Intelligence as tested for in the iq test. It's well defined, results are repeatable, and it has practical applications as a predictive tool for many things.
Accepting it to be true doesn't make it so, Iago.
Alchemy is more valid than chemistry, by the way.
>>25448222
Once again, showing you don't know what science is.
>>25448222
*no
oc
>>25448269
>Once again, showing you don't know what science is.
Again, an attempt to redefine 'science'. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.
>>25448202
Why limit it to human behavior?take an animal and lock it in a cage. Place two bowls of food in the cage, one black and one white. Every time the animal approaches the white bowl you beat the shit out of it. After learning takes place you can predict it will avoid the white bowl in the future. This works for humans too of course, but psychology isn't the study of humans, you're confused and think whatever stupid shit you're thinking about is psychology.
>>25448222
Can you explain what red looks like, what a rose smells like, what fingernails being dragged across your skin feel like?
These things are examples of qualia.
>>25448341
That is the realm of poetry anon.
>>25448330
Nope.
>Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world
That's natural science, not science.
>>25448420
'Natural' as in non-secular Anon.
>>25448381
It's a very real philosophical problem.
Qualia are things that are familiar to everyone, but cannot be quantified using anything but the word that exists for them.
You know what the color purple looks like, right?
But is there any way that isn't self-referential that can describe what you see in this image?
>>25441256
>>25443091
Underrated posts.
>>25448522
Um, ok? Fascinating, I guess. I only used the tree/woods example as a gag.
>>25448635
This is actually a far bigger issue than it might seem right now.
What if there are people who experience that image you see as what you would experience as green?
Whose qualia is correct, theirs, yours, neither or both?
How do you even know whether these people do or do not exist?
What does that say about the world we live in?
Qualia are one of the most exciting things in philosophy.
