/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10983283
>the studies ARE widely reproducible, but only on an anecdotal level
But they have no falsification criteria typically. That's why astrology is, like, the ultimate pseudoscience. Psych has that at least.
Also Psych studies typically only try and make statements about a certain population at a certain time. Generalization isn't a strong suit of social sciences. Anthropology is better for that kind of thing, but that's not even a science.
Basically, no need to inject science into areas where its method doesn't fit. Scientific method is used in psych, so it's a science, even if it doesn't explain everything adequately all the time.
Rambling over, no real point to what I said just adding something

>>10947777
Basically, everyone is just following their programming. Everyone is doing what they think is best, because it's all they know. Even things like IQ are a result of this phenomena, with the whole process of IQ testing being heavily based on white norms, ignoring other types of norms, but that's a whole different conversation. All you need to know is that, genetically, cognitively, and biologically, even a black man and an asian woman are basically identical. You could pick two random penguins from the antarctic and they would have a greater degree of genetic variation, this isn't news. Differences in people on such a scale as race are basically *never* from disposition, but from situation. This has been shown time and time again throughout history, and biological science in general (especially cognitive neuroscience) knows this all too well. Everyone is basically identical, until they are developed otherwise.

Rant done, I'd love to know thoughts