/sci/ - Science & Math

Keep in mind that psychology is a fairly new field, and so it is rife with fraud. Once we churn out enough information, a sort of reference will begin to form that will allow us to quickly recognize that which is false or fraudulent. We can do that now with statistical analysis, though.

Also, when you're crying out "pseudo science," keep in mind that string theorists still get an embarrassing amount of funding and attention.

>>4993785

I'm well aware of thought experiments being part of science. I just don't think it's a good way to go about gathering knowledge about the world. The mind is biased in so many ways.

>>4966793

To be completely fair, psychology is supposed to be completely verifiable through statistics as well, though it is still a soft science because of its social nature. However, there is admittedly a lot of fraud in psychology. Any reputable discovery in psychology is verified through extensive experimentation (repeated ad nauseum and on a large scale) and statistical evidence, though. It just happens that some well-established people have used their influence to mask their fraud, because psychology is susceptible to such things. You can easily expose fraud, however, as one psychologist has recently proven, through the use of statistics alone.

You must be thinking of Freud and his ilk, the assertions of whom have been widely challenged and debunked. You can no longer get away with making wild assumptions. It is still, however, a soft science, because it is social.

>>4920238

you could also go with Microsoft Excel. But with Excel you will need much more understanding of the underlying principles.

As far as I remember, in SPSS you can just "tell" the program to perform an ANOVA.

Btw psychology major doing this shit. So much for "not a real science".
Not directed at OP, but at the rest of this stupid board.

>>4674960

"the tulpa thing is scientifically testable to some extent"

wtf should be testable about it? Come on, blow my mind.

"but like most psychological phenomena, there is a point where you have to take someone's word for it, or have the same experiences yourself."

you sir, do not seem to have any knowledge about how psychology as a field of science works.
If you want to be taken seriously, stop your ideographic bullshit approach and try a nomothetic one...