So what are the opposing arguments to the motion "psychology is a science"
Psychology lacks objective constants and baselines for scientific study because the human mind and the way it reacts to things does not have agreed upon definitions or guidelines.
>>8061620
Mathematician here. I personally think that psychology is an important up and coming experimental science. It doesn't have the foundings that the other sciences have, but it's improving all the time, theories being replaced by newer ones, and once it does have a proper founding, I believe that it can really go far.
>>8061620
It uses the scientific method therefore it is a science.
The problem is that many non scientific ideas long ago crept in to psychology and they have a hard time getting rid of those ideas.
However there are plenty of examples of good science in psychology. Get over it.
>>8061620
That at this moment it is more like a religion.
Decades ago one old retarded fuck thought of ego depletion and use the """scientific""" method to find some data that specifically agreed with him, then he published it as fact, fucking QED, as solid as a fucking rock.
Some time ago, probably one retard student decided to just reproduce the results and the data was impossible to get.
Now the same study has been done hundred of times in an effort to "save" the theory of ego depletion but literally not a single one can even get close to the results the original research found.
You know what this means? That either that PhD completely staged that study, having his students pretend they were doing work and then paying some other students to pretend they took the test, or he actually did the study, then burned all the data and just replaced with whatever he wanted.
That was acceptable. The entire psychology community, that unlike this retard >>8061636
would have you believe, has been established for centuries, simply agreed with it.
YUP THAT SOUNDS GOOD. LETS NOT TEST HIS WILD CLAIM, JUST GO WITH IT!
The lie went so out of hand that this is actually it's own field of study in psychology.
To put into perspective, imagine that after hundreds of years of development, someone found a logical non-sequitur in the proof for the fundamental theorem of calculus and turns out that calculus has been wrong all along.
That is psychology right now.
>>8061699
You can look up the entire shitsfrom from 'ego depletion' yourself.
Psychology is a science.
Psychiatry is not a science.
>>8061658
That's nothing, in physics we had some old retarded fuck talking about his "Galilean transformation". He then used the "scientific method" to find data that specifically agreed with him, then he published it as fact, fucking QED. Then 250 fucking years some smart cunt decided to apply this transformation to light, and boom, turns out he'd been wrong for all those years.
Now some people would say the fact that these issues eventually came to light and were corrected is actually an affirmation of a subjects credentials to call it's a science, but I'm sure you know best anon, best to hold onto any old belief like a stricter version of religion.
>>8061755
>Then 250 fucking years some smart cunt decided to apply this transformation to light
There is your logical problem.
The new studies do not even try to test the theory outside of its original constraints, nor do they try to push the limit on some completely new setting.
I mean this when I say that they re-did the exact experiment, controlling for every single variable.
Then, even more tests were done in settings that you would believe would comform to the theory with no problem and even then nothing comes out of it.
The sad thing is that if you think about it, ego depletion kinda makes sense logically, but psychologists made a single mistake.
What was this mistake? They thought that
(f(2) = 5) implies (f(x) = 5 for all x).
Make your univerisites more rigorous and this shit won't happen.
In regards to the study, I would say many people confuse the concept of bad research with bad science. There is a league of bad researchers out there, but the study is not bad. It will just take time to cull the bad limbs
>>8061620
Psychology is a science.
Psychiatry is a not a science.
>>8061727
Brother!
>>8061620
These threads always attract the one or two people on this board who vigorously hate psychology because they had a bad therapist or they read that replication is hard without knowing all the background. It is too complex for this board unfortunately.
>>8061620
Well IQ comes from psychological tests, so if psychology isn't a real science then IQs are meaningless and hold no weight on this board or outside it
>>8061971
IQs don't hold any weight.
Neither psychiatry nor psychology are sciences. They perpetually fail to define and unearth laws. The underlying elements used to formulate high level theories are rarely reproducible and typically you can't even make a heuristic to unravel what your starting conditions actually -are-, and why. This is what makes neurology a science, and psychology not. It's not an insult to psychology, it's just the nature of it. You're picking out clusters of elements, throwing them together into macro constructs, trying to make a framework that applies over a broad population (ie not just you). Most people are pitiful at controlling for error introduced by their own faculties and the machinery of their mind, ironically, psychologists tend to be even worse. The create signal in noise even if they aren't properly modeling the source, nor some facet of a spectrum of possibilities.
It doesn't create laws and isn't objectively testable. What's most important to get across here is that saying psychology, psychiatry, social sciences, etc aren't science IS NOT AN INSULT. I imagine it as working from the top down, working tangentially, interpolating. Neuroscience works from the low level and tries to scale up, taking a mechanistic and reductionist approach. The two form a dualism, and they must. Without psychology you couldn't easily ascribe the low level activity meaning relative to human experience.
Look around. Crowd psychology is used to manipulate people on a massive scale. Techniques that are hundreds of years old but were only refined ~80 years ago. You're bombarded with advertising daily. Someone is also trying to rig your environment to engineer you. People build over their lifetime very fast and sophisticated heuristics that run in the background, capable of filtering massive amounts of information. And it works. Your entire reality and all of human history is omnipresent proof of this.
>>8062035
Why do neuropsychologists use IQ tests then?
>>8062091
I ran out of characters, but I ought to add on, the majority of psychiatry is garbage quackery. Medicine as a whole is little better, but psychiatry really is bottom of the barrel.
A lot of concepts can be readily dismissed as nonsense. Again, when you factor in theory of mind and what people actually have to work with, the reason for this is obvious. You'd expect the field to become diverse and begin to chip away at these things with many different viewpoints... but it doesn't seem to be occurring very fast. Psychology has a lot of room to expand.
There does not meaningfully exist a "human". This thing we've separated out to call the human species is but a tiny cluster of points in a mechanical waterfall. Despite having many underlying fixed constants in our behaviors and therefore patterns in outcomes throughout history, we are not eternal. It's not just environment that's changing all the time. We are of a finite mind, and thus finite novel context and finite behaviors. Model it all you like, the shift continues and you'll always be picking out outliers. This does not make something a good candidate for scientific results. Physics and neuroscience are better suited. And that's just fine.
>>8062091
>Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.[1][2] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.
You are confusing Psychology with Psychiatry.
>Psychiatry is the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders. These include various abnormalities that are affective, behavioural, cognitive, and perceptual.
I study behavioral neuroscience and have a BS in Psychology. All the testing and a lot of animal testing are Pseudo-experiments, and is made clear in intro courses and Stat courses. Is Psychology a science? Parts of it, that use actual experimentation on animals. The rest is a discipline.
>>8062105
I'm not confusing anything. Psychiatry does not function like a science, nor does it deserve to be treated like one.
Their reproducibility rate is pitiful, and to be blunt, they have little idea what they're doing half the time. I don't believe framing anything as disordered is a useful cognitive tool. You're deluded right out of the gates, and surprise surprise, you get almost nowhere.
>>8062123
You are right that in psychiatry framing any atypical behavior as a disorder is a problem. In clinical research, strength-based approaches are becoming more common, though (cf. autism).
>>8062205
I'll readily admit I have a personal bias against psychiatry. Never in my life have I seen it produce an outcome I saw as ideal, even if those involved were happy with it. Ignoring and controlling for that, as you pointed out, the underpinnings of psychiatry are faulty from the get-go.
Look at how many models of schizophrenia there are, and their sources. Most of it comes not from psychiatry, but from neuroscience. Everyone knows the dopamine hypothesis is net wrong as the primary causative agent, the machinery causing this chain of effects lies elsewhere. You have the histamine aspect. Higher salsolinol excretion. Endocannabinoids. The recent success with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Who is piecing together this puzzle? Who's primarily doing all the work? People involved in neuroscience research, who are actually interested in the pharmacology of these drugs and the machinery that affords them their ultimate effect. And what is psychiatry doing? Mainly blindly drugging people and arguing over if the faculties are intact and genuinely receiving altered sensory input, or if the sensory input is normal and the processing stages introduce errors. That's not strictly it... but it might as well be.
Psychiatry is an old world relic that's closer to witch doctors than this supposed ideal of evidence based medicine. The disjointed hackjob of a field oughta get gone and stay gone, so people can continue to actively deploy cognitive behavioral therapy and approach that genuinely help people who feel they don't like what they are. You cannot try to fix the brain like it's a broken machine without also keeping in mind that the person themselves IS that machine. It's a very complex system that we don't know shit about. I highly doubt it's a true intrinsic mechanical failure that cannot be fixed through environment, personal introspection, therapy, or diet. These fucks can barely design drugs themselves anyway, speaking of.
Fuck psychiatry.
Psychology has a bad rap as it's really only just started trying to be extremely scientific. It's a difficult one as most of Psychological theory is rooted in subjectivity that people try and prove in an objective manner. IMO Psych overall will never be considered a real science, but I think that's a good thing as to do so would move away from the whole point of Psychology. It's just different.
>>8062236
I'm sorry you have schizophrenia
>>8062374
I don't have schizophrenia, to my knowledge.
>>8062035
wholly untrue
