/sci/ - Science & Math

Surely this won't devolve into shitflinging over whether emotion can be inferred from behavior.
great thread
I'll start, psychologists claim mice can be depressed, but we know from several current threads on /sci/ that psychology isn't science.
Every subsequent reply is made by a homosexual.

>>10265785
Yes, obviously.
They wouldn't be a 1:1 perfect match because their experiences are unique to their kind, but you could draw some parallels.

>>10265801
>Surely this won't devolve into shitflinging over whether emotion can be inferred from behavior.
Depends on your animal. Dogs are social animals that depend on the cooperation of the pack so they need a way to express their mood.

>>10265785
Of course. We are animals ourselves. The only difference is that we have greater cognitive ability, which can be understood as a super-ability. It's a tool that our animal brains happen to have at their disposal to do whatever the animal brain (midbrain) within us wants to do. The neocortex is not the seat of agency. It's the midbrain, just like a mouse brain, just like a cat brain, etc and so on.

>>10265801
retard

>>10265808
>Dogs are social animals that depend on the cooperation of the pack so they need a way to express their mood.
Rex I'm really depressed about hunting this rabbit.

It's okay Fido. I'm here as emotional support when we tear this thing apart for sustenance.

>>10265801
>but we know from several current threads on /sci/ that psychology isn't science.
Which is why reddit will never compete with this place. Every supposed "science" subreddit is full of bullshit psychology articles from posers pretending it's a science.

>>10265785
Yes

Doesn't stop me from picking them apart though :)

>>10265809
stop projecting

>>10265785
Of course. The complexity of those things merely increase or decrease with intelligence level.

>>10265900
>investigations of the physical world aren't scientific unless they conform to my arbitrary and excessively restrictive definition, and everyone who doesn't accept my idiotic definition is a retard and a poser because I'm smarter than all the retards and the posers and therefore my smart definition is superior to theirs and the retards and posers need to go back to all the other retards and posers and retard/poser-ddit.

>>10267058
Stop not projecting

I mean most of these are obvious and easily observable. You surprise a dog and it recoils in fear. You smack a monkey and it gets pissed off and flings it's shit. Etc.

Idk about higher order emotions like "worthlessness" because that implies that animals have some sort of abstract notion of worth. However animals have been demonstrated to have a notion of "fairness". There was a study done I forget with which animal, but they gave one of the subjects a food it really likes and the other one a food it doesn't like as much and it rebelled. There were many other examples like that in the study but I'm too lazy to find it.

>>10267259
Yes, sure science is on a spectrum. Get the fuck back off to reddit.

>>10267398
>duh.. dur... science is only what i say it us duuuh... it can dur... only be used to study... hur... those limited parts of the physical world i say... i'm smart... duh... reddit back go...

>>10265785
The more you interact with animals the more obvious it becomes that we are one.

>>10267259
>psychology
kek
>>10267398
science is facts. Psychology isn't even reproducible.

>>10265785
Some animals do.

>>10265785

Have you ever seen or interacted with an animal to ask such a retarded question?

>>10267450
how could this be possible? What would define emotion? All mammals at the very least are developed enough to convey emotion, albeit some, you're right about that, have a rather rudimentary form of it. Rhino's aren't the smartest of creatures but even they can show signs of emotion.

>>10267437
>human and animal behavior is completely random and can't be studied scientifically
Are... are you serious?

>>10267472
>implying the methodology used in psychological experiments is scientific
>small test samples are the norm instead of the exception
Are...are you serious?

>>10267495
If you'd just distinguish between the institution of experimental psychology and the idea of an experimental psychology, you'd have already won the argument.

Good job throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

>>10267437
>Psychology isn't even reproducible

Wait, what?

I mean, it's not reproducible in the simple sense that the same stimulus might evoke an insanely wide number of reactions in different individual subjects, but that's a failure of the testing method. People are incredibly complicated creatures, how can you even propose a control group?

It is, however, able to make general predictions about groups of people. The DSM is generally accurate; that suggests it is reproducible at scale.

Claiming psychology is underdeveloped science, sure; but not science at all? That's a completely ignorant statement.

a tree has emotions

>>10267504
Pretty sure there're repeatable psychological experiments going on withing the institutions, even if there's a lot of garbage as well.

>>10267521
True.

I don't really think he's correct, I wanted to play at agreeing with him to increase my chances of persuading him to reevaluate his position - even if he only shifted a little.
Of course, in explaining this I've shattered the illusion so anon will probably continue to be an autistic fag.

>>10267506
Not everything needs to be a "science" to spurt out some occasionally useful shit. Psychologists are butthurt that they aren't real doctors and so they claim to be scientists. They simply are not. And there are countless volumes of contradictory shit they've produced to prove it. All failing at the scientific method. All you really need is to write some drivel that suits the preconceived bias of your target audience and you are successfully practicing psychology. Look at the shit the "science" subreddits post to see that in action.

>>10267521
I can repeat the same game on a playstation, that doesn't make it a "science".

>>10267545
>>Psychology isn't even reproducible
>Yes it is
>I can repeat the same game on a playstation, that doesn't make it a "science".

Hard to say if you're a trolling or just plain retarded. What was the term for it.. Poe's law I think.

>>10267543
>anon will probably continue to be an autistic fa
It's almost certain.

>>10267545
>volumes of contradictory shit
Isn't that how we do science tho? We try different shit until we find something that sticks?

Can you propose a better method to study the human mind? Or would you suggest we not try at all?

In the last hundred years of physics there have been a great number of competing theories, some of them contradictory. We should probably throw it all out, right?

>All you really need is to write some drivel that suits the preconceived bias of your target audience and you are successfully practicing psychology

Seems like an apt description of most "modern" science as well. Have you read any of the recent "peer reviewed" papers? If you don't conform to the current dogma, you're ridiculed. Your results don't please the political spin of the org giving you grant money? No more money. Who knows how long this has been going on? Tainted studies can't be science, right? Throw it all out!

>>10267259
>astrology is the science of predicting the future state of things by studying the position of the celestial bodies.

>>10267636
Your trolling is laughable kid. You're failing to elicit anything but mild amusement at how retarded your arguments are.

>>10267623
Not if they just conflict and never defeat each other’s hypothesis or showing a path to how to disprove them. If you want a “science” built around unfalsifiable theories, then it’s a “science”. A real science has a goal of proving the hypothesis wrong. Fraudulent “science” and fraudulent scientists are about maintaining the circle jerk. Does real science have these quacks? Sure. But a real science can filter them out eventually in provable ways. Not simply because they are no longer trendy.

>>10265827
There's a social dynamic in packs and they do look out for eachother.

>>10265785
>in the way that humans do?
No because they're not human. Emotion and consciousness is on a gradient spectrum, with growing complexity and depth as the animal becomes more intelligent.

>>10267058
>reason is a slave to the passions

>>10267516
/thread

>>10265900
But it is a science. And the science is in that transgendered people don't suffer any mental illness!

>>10267636
>People won't realize that this guy is actually correct and don't understand that astrology wasn't always about thots wondering if they are compatible with a Leo and crap like that and actually based itself on noting actual correlations

>>10267623
>Can you propose a better method to study the human mind?

Introspection

>>10268787
I think it was Heinlein who said the best way to gauge someone's intelligence is to ask their honest opinion about astrology.

>>10268739
It does make sense that a field that self-identifies as a “science” would believe that self-identifying as another gender is appropriate and normal.