/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5753792

For clinical psychology, I wouldn't say pseudoscience. It's more that when you go into therapy, like in medicine, it's not really science (as in generating theories based on empirical evidence), but a health profession (actually applying said evidence). Single-case-studies, as they are sometimes used in clinical (neuro)psychology are not scientific per se, at least not in the nomothetic way. They follow an ideographic approach, but still they stick to certain quality criteria.

Regarding social psychology, I can't quite understand what you mean by pseudoscience. All the papers I've been confronted with so far have satisfied the criteria of the scientific approach.

>>5303432

You are the first one to point that out.


Since the thread seems to be derailing, I assume the OP question is sufficiently answer and would therefore gracefully remove myself from this thread.

>>5298681

That's an opinion you are very welcome to hold. What bothered me and ultimately triggered my first post was that people in this thread (or board in general) spout "X is Y because Z" without even knowing what they are talking about.

>>5283244

Anyone interested has all right to feel excluded from previous insults. Stay tuned.

>>5248916

You are pretty much making a fool of yourself and you're not even realizing it.
Consciousness and Self-awareness are not doubted in modern science.
In fact, there is actual scientific research on it. Self-awareness for example even has experimental data to back it up.

Only because you are too stupid to think of ways to test it doesn't mean that people who are smarter than you haven't done just that and more.

>>5241332

Then, good sir, we have resolved this matter.

However, I'm having problems understanding your initial statement about this "place of information". I don't see how evolution would grant us a way of perceiving it.

>>5133348

The problem with Rorschach and TAT and so on is that they are not based on anything. What exactly does "analyzing" mean, when the analyzer has no knowledge whatsoever about the actual processes and inner workings of the "mind"? How is he better at it than someone I just randomly pull from the street?
My issue with these projective paradigms is, that there are "experts without expertise".
"Analyzing" becomes "guessing" pretty fast in that way. It's fine for a little fun at parties, when people are intoxicated enough to get an inflated feeling of selfimportance and emotional lability. But for health professionals and scientists it just lacks fundamental requirements.

No offense meant, btw.

>>5044465

Nice ad hominem. It equals admitting that I'm right with what I posted before, since you seem to lack contrary arguments.

Also nice "diagnosis" based upon my appearance on an anonymous imageboard.

Well, I guess superiority DOES look like arrogance for the less educated.