>>8200283
Psychology is closer to natural sciences than to philosophy.

I mean the problem with psychology is that it is too easy to just insert your political opinions into it, making it a 'quest for what you want to be true', like philosophy, but it still uses the scientific method.

We need regulations, as we discovered some time ago (70&% of psych research found to be bs) that psychologists cannot regulate themselves.

We need an institution that hires psychology bachelors or higher that approves all research for publication if and only if they can reproduce the results, that will be communicated to them by the researchers.

To make sure this works, give an incentive for the workers to want to find flaws in the research. Something simple like give a 500$ 'bounty' to any team working in the institution that can succesfully discredit a study.

This would mean that psychologists would not have to defend their claims against their peers (that politically agree with them) but also with an opposing force of other psychologists that are actively looking to discredit them.

>>8200283
Psychology should be more scientific imo.

Now:
>printing press
>not technology
though the claim it's making us anti-social is silly, rather it's enabling us to not have to be social. I sometimes wonder how social we are as a species really, if it's a matter of circumstance more than a matter of instinct. I think we're less social than we think we are, only social because we need to be to survive but provide a means of doing something without putting up with other people and the person method is obsolete.

>>8200313
That sounds like a good idea, I see what you mean about publishing bullshit. There was anon the other day that said he had made up 50% of his statistics in his peer-reviewed sociology journal which made me cringe.

>>8200329
Yeah, regardless I think the image just signifies that no matter what (be it a newspaper, phone, book, daydreaming, etc..) humans will find a way not to be "social" in situations like a bus or train, and it cannot be attributed to technology at all. Although that said I think it allows us to be less social than if we didn't have it (you can still be engaged if you're daydream, but less so if you're listening to music with earphones). I often find myself chastising technology too, perhaps I put a bit too much blame on it.

That's an interesting thought, I don't think technological social interaction can substitute real social interaction, and it'll be interesting to see how technology damages the human ability to interact without it.

>>8200313
There does seem to be philosophical elements to a lot of psychology, I'd claim that evolutionary psychology was almost primarily philosophy.

>>8200329
You sure think a lot of stupid shit, anon.

>>8200283
>psychology hasn't evolved to anything tangible

that's funny. people, even in this board, spout out a bunch of loaded psychology claims as if it were tangible facts.

>>8200370
sorry it's over your head and you need to dismiss it as mad ramblings to hold your ego together, anon.

>>8200313
I agree with this. I know it's memetic but psychoanalysis killed the idea of psychology as a modern science by making it practically immeasurable and almost completely subjective/pseudoscientific.

>>8200313
Philosophy is really nothing more or less than reasoning (Ryan Workman)
But if philosophy is just reasoning, you ask, then why does it need its own profession? Would not all other kinds of activity just become specializations of reasoning, leaving philosophy simply a synonym with rational activity? Further, what does that make a professional philosopher, because they certainly are not experts in everything. There are, however, philosophies of near everything (philosophy of science, history, econ, etc.). I think this point is key for entry into the nature (and value) of philosophy: somehow philosophy is not all rational activity, but philosophy is interested or involved in all rational activity.

My rough notion is this: philosophy is the creation and investigation of structures within which we can rationally operate. Philosophy of other disciplines, such as philosophy of science, investigates the framework within which the discipline operates. It is the difference between defining and doing: a scientist does science, while a philosopher of science seeks to understand what the scientist is doing.

Once other disciplines have been exhausted, what is left over? We are left with specializations such as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology. It seems to me that these are all structural elements of life. In other words, using the same structure as I utilized with science, we 'do' life, while philosophers seek to understand what we are doing. This post is meta-philosophy (philosophy of philosophy), because it is a reflection on what philosophers are doing. This account also explains why some rational traditions such as ethics are philosophy at their foundation and throughout (i.e both ethics and meta-ethics belong to philosophy, compared to, say, science, where only philosophy of science belongs to philosophy). Ethics is already a step removed from acting: we all struggle with 'choice', 'freedom', 'right and wrong', and ethics tries to understand this activity.

>>8200283
Read a few of these papers, especially Fechner and Loftus, and try to tell me psychology hasn't found anything tangible. Ah the seductive allure of neuroimaging has blinded you.

>>8203364
Forgot link http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/02/top-ten-psychology-studies.php

>>8200283
>Shouldn't psychology be considered a branch of philosophy, instead of masquerading around as an established science?

>Shouldn't we stop using the scientific method when trying to understand how people think

>Redpill me on being a complete idiot

>>8201898
Psychoanalysis is dead. No one cares about it anymore.

>>8200283
>Shouldn't psychology be philosophy instead of philosophy
Gee, I don't know.

We had this thread last week.

Go away.

>>8203431
The main problem with Psychoanalysis was that it was limited to the demographic of the hysteric Viennese bugoise.

It doesn't help anyone except authors.

>>8203440
The ego superego and id are valuable conceptual tools.

>>8203448
How?

>>8201898
I hold the opposite opinion, psychoanalysis is one of psychology's greatest achievements and the obsession with making psychology 'obejctive' and scientific on all fronts is what ruined it. Pretty much everyone agrees that neuroscientific research is the gold standard in what should be aimed for, but obsessive scientism (and yes, I mean that word) otherwise prevents people from being understood as the individuals with subjective experience they are.

>>8200283
friendly reminder that if you dismiss psychology as non-science, then IQ tests are bogus and you fags have nothing to be smug over.

>>8203448
They're baseless.

>>8200283
>psychologist labels me an autist
>"hurr durr, that's wrong, stupid pseudo-sciences I tell ya"
Classic stemcuck

>>8204435
We do, higher education.
Which by the way is far more valuable than a single test score.