/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6351024

Psychology does not want to "prove" things. It makes claims about probability. That's why psychology uses statistic. You seem to have some misconceptions about social sciences.

>>5753744

Keep trolling. Science is defined by the method, not the topic. Psychology uses the scientific method. Therefore it qualifies as a science. I guess your concept of what psychology actually deals with is inaccurate.

>>5369842

I second this notion.

>>5344838

"Tier" is the german word for "animal". Lel.

>>5303384

It's not about the sample "scientists". It's about the trait "introversion".
And that is exactly what I adressed in my previous post. The question was

>Are introvert people generally better at science and if so, why?

>>5303380
deal with it

>>5298662

What happens is, that you won't get data. At least not the easy way.
I'm very aware of the difficulties of screening populations for socially undesirable characteristics.

The difference between "collection of anecdotes" and "collection of samples" is that samples are less prone to display biases. Also you get numbers, which means you can actually quantify things and estimate probabilities.

also pic somehow related.

>>5136357

Psychology began way before Freud.
Wundt started the first laboratory for psychophysics in Leipzig.

>>4993725

Then what the flying fuck are you doing on a SCIENCE board? Fuck off to /b/ or some other populus of likewise unknowing individuals to circlejerk the what-ifs and could-nots....

>>4971378

And almost always the impuls for changing our theories comes from improvement of measurement precision.
That's why I'm so opposed of the notion that there are things about the mind we will "never" understand, as claimed by so many people (which often lack any education or expertise in the field).