/sci/ - Science & Math

>Do you agree with that notion?
Yes, since neither psychologists nor psychiatrists use the scientific method.

>>10411305

Not a rigorous science. So much is unfalsifiable, so many studies aren't replicated, every decade the last decade's set of standards are tossed out as bunk and replaced with some new norm. It's in its infancy and it makes sense as a brain understanding itself is a tall order.

Won't make it any easier now that retarded women have taken it over and made subjectivity the standard.

>>10411324

Neither do Cosmologists.

>>10411305
doesn't have to be, science is overrated

>>10411330
>every decade the last decade's set of standards are tossed out as bunk and replaced with some new norm
This. And they get incredibly mad when you mention it to them.

>>10411305
yes, psychology is made up trash for women to pretend they understand things

>>10411305
>psychology
>psychiatry
post picture of a psychoanalyst

>>10411330
The studies are done with scientific method in mind, but the inability to replicate them after a decade or so shows how humans drastically change with the current ideology.

>science is a well defined category
Anyway

>psychiatry
Yes, it's just primitive as fuck

>psychology
You could call it a social science I guess, it's as much of a science as anthropology or linguistics

>psychoanalysis
No, it's astrology tier pseudoscience and even a self-aware scam in some cases

>psychology and psychiatry

>>10411444
Imaging posting the same picture in every thread you don't like

>>10411324
Are you retarded? Of course it does use the scientifical method. Good luck getting
Any kind of funds for a study not based on scientifical method. You know that hypnosis is used in surgery rooms right? Altered consciousness has been demonstrated to be very effective in many areas of paychology, psychiatry amd medecine all thanks to the scientifical method. Have you ever read a peer reviewed paper in that field?

>>10411362
Astrophysics is always pushing the boundries and reinventing itself. Whats your point here brainlet? You are basically describing what science is and axiological neutrality.

>>10411305

I'd say that it becomes real science when neurology is accounted for. If one uses knowledge about how regions of the brain "manifest" themselves in terms of observable behavior, one could make reasonable assessments regarding behavioral and pharmaceutical therapies to enhance quality of living.

The question is how one goes about categorizing the various mental "states of being." Considering that social identity and behavior can be altered by knowing one fits into a category, whether reasonably or not, it is important this classification system be constantly updated not only to account for knowledge which is new but also in terms of optimizing human behavior.

Without a neurological component or at the very least some other empirical field of science supporting it, I would agree it's useless.

>>10411490
Why are you so angry? Are you a psychologist?

>>10411512
I just hate the fact that 90% of this board does not know what science means.

>>10411512
If I can claim to be able to condition a human to act a certain way. Condition said human, observe my prediction unfold. Reproduce it with other humans. How is it not science? Because it does not have a mathematical component to it?

>>10411368
Its one of the 7 psychological fields, what's your point?

>>10411530
They all approach the subject from vastly different standpoints making it hard to judge them all by the same standard.

And pertaining to psychoanalysis they are mostly interested in the causation not categorization of the psyche.

>>10411548

Establishing causation is tricky. You need a lot of statistical data to validate a claim, but it can be done in a scientific way.

For instance, I'm pretty certain from the data available that fighting in active combat lends itself towards developing PTSD more so than not fighting in active combat.

>>10411530
>field
It's more of a school of thought, one that's deprecated and considered outdated by psychologists in most other schools of thought for not being consistent and rigorous enough and that's saying a lot

>>10411305
No, psychology and psychiatry should use scientific rigor to test hypotheses and generate results that eventually lead to theories.

Science isn't confined to a set of fields it is a way of doing things to understand the world.

/thread

>>10411568
This is what most on /sci/ dont get. Math does not have monopoly on science, it is just one of its many implications. One can hate social sciences as much as they like but it does not make it less science than mathematics, astrophysics, astronomy etc... Epistemology being a great exemple of this.

>>10411489
Is that why 90% of published psychology experiments have been found to be unfalsifiable or irreproducible?

>>10411330
This desu. Althought I have hope in neuroscience (especially computational but also cognitive).

>>10411305
Psychiatry tries to be, psychology very much is not

Freud was a genius, and probably the sole reason I consider psychology to be a real science, but the thing is that psychology can easily be perverted since it's not as quantifiable as maths or whatever, and women are overrepresented which is never a good sign for science.

>>10411489
>Are you retarded
Reading your response it seems you might be

>>10411324
>the scientific method
Lol

>>10411581
To be correct, Math isn’t a science. Nothing about mathematics is inherently scientific until it use applied to as scientific problem.

>>10411489
>can't reproduce results of study
>"it is science!!!"

>>10411634
He was also an avid cocaine user.

>>10411654
Are you the trying to make me like him even more?

>>10411444
>imaging
Kys

>>10411305
no, just because you can't see it it can't be dismissed
however many don't use real science so I can kinda see where this is going to

>>10411517
>It uses the scientific method and is therefore science
I just hate how 90% of the public school "geniuses" on this board think that this is what science means

>>10411521
>Reproduce it with other humans
That's why the entire field is in a reproducibility crisis that dwarfs any other field generally regarded as "science."
Science doesn't just mean "using the scientific scientific method." You also need to be rigorous and create models that offer predictive capability. Psychologists almost never attempt to make overarching models, and when they do it always ends up being non-reproducible.
The only true psychology is neuroscience, and if you knew anything about that you would understand how much bullshit these people are spewing, all the while having nothing to back it up aside from "expert" opinions.

>>10411746
I just hate how private school narcissist with piss poor gpa think they know what science is

>>10411642
Which means the theory isnt good enough.
No one worth their salt, would admit that psychology is a mature field of study.

>>10411305
ur gay

>>10411858
Quite funny given that the greatest mind in history is currently proving God and establishing a theory of everything through cognitive processi

>>10411656
you're obviously naive

>>10411305
Very strongly yes, no physical correlates, no mathematical rigor, poor application of statistics, extremely low replication rate and high incidence of underpowered foundational studies, disagreement in fundamental theories, extremely low mathematical literacy. Its not science by any definition.

>>10411871
Yes typically a field of knowledge has to prove the existance of God or at least some platonic form of a another dimension at least 12 times before we consider it mature.

>>10411871
>Quite funny given that the greatest mind in history is currently proving God and establishing a theory of everything through cognitive processi
Newton is dead

>>10411943
You know that science is based on the assumption that there is a subject. That subject is defined by its psychological processes.
Checkmate black science man.

>>10411933
You're obviously a lot smarter than I am.

>>10411958
there needn't be a subject to do science and neuroscience and philosophy of mind have been slowly corroding the foundations of the phenomenal self for some time now. You're not thinking about this clearly, without a physical system to study, without laws or proper quantitative grounding for the theories it is just interpretation and projected phenomenology. That can never be science, when psyche or any other "fringe" scientific field becomes science it won't resemble anything like it is now and will be populated by people who have experience in actual scientific fields.

>>10411995
I agree with the quantitative grounding part, but who sais this isnt what psychology is striving for.
Reading Lacan, this is clearly his ideal, when he states that psychoanalysis can state whether a cathexis is positive or negative but the goal is to be quantitatively accurate.

Also, even if neuroscience is making the headway it is incapable of describing a subjects experience in any meaningful way. It being a third person perspective and not how we experience the world as in first.

Idk what you mean by philosophy of the mind.

>>10412021
>Reading Lacan, this is clearly his ideal, when he states that psychoanalysis can state whether a cathexis is positive or negative but the goal is to be quantitatively accurate.
>Idk what you mean by philosophy of the mind.
Anon, I...

>>10412026
idk what that particular anon is referring to when he writes philosophy of the mind obviously psychoanalytics is knee deep in it.

Social science isn’t a real science

Think of psychiatry as the study of the mind and neuroscience -- of the brain. Arguing that psychiatry isn't real science because neuroscience exists is like arguing that software engineering isn't engineering because computer engineering exists.

>>10412363
t. brainlet

psychology and psychiatry are "studies" of the mind founded on unproven hypotheses that are refuted as much as they are confirmed

>>10411490
>physics
>reinventing itself
Ask me how I know you have no formal education.

>>10411305
Will be replaced by neuroscience.

>>10411305
No. But they are amongst those few subjects where /sci is really ignorant or retarded.

Here's a proof: >>10413308
Most people here simply don't understand mental illnesses, psychiatric drugs or psychotherapy.

It's partly because psychiatry is shit in the US though.

Freud himself very clearly and repeatedly reminded his readers that psychoanalysis is, like medicine in general, only partly science, the other part being art. He expressed hopes in several instances that in the future neuroscience would advance to uncover more knowledge about the unconscious.

>>10411342
>look at data [question]
>come up with theory [hypothesis]
>compare model with data
>bad? go to step 1
>point telescope at different part of universe [experiment]
>compare model with data
>bad? go to step 1
>go to step 5

>>10411305
No that's fucking stupid. Scientific =/= materialist.

>>10411305
The only real science is the study of Consciousness, or Metaphysics. This puts Philosophy above all.

>>10412585
I MEAN, if you want to discount the
>epidemiologic studies detailing the genetic and other quantitative and qualitative investigation into the etiology of psych disorders
>GWAS-es linking psych disorders to genetic in a statistically sound way
>(f)MRI/MEG/FNIR and other imaging methods that are used to qualitatively diagnose and monitor treatment of psychiatric disorders
>the extensive drug trials for psych meds including validation and drug improvement trials after the actual phase1/2/3s
>the fact that we do literal neurosurgery like DBS implantation for disorders such as depression and OCD, and psychosurgery is making a comeback in a scientifically sound, replicable, and ethically sane way


Saying that "psych is bad because it's constantly being refined/changed" is like saying science is bad because we're always proving/disproving hypotheses and we should all just go accept the Jesus. Finally, nice job on responding to any of my points and staying away from ad-hominem mental masturbation.

>>10414042
>fromthefuture.jpg
the future has arrived

>>10414042
You can't study something that you've admitted is incomprehensible.

>>10411305
This is beating a dead horse and yes it's a science
>>10411636
You can't seriously be calling anyone else retarded aside from yourself

>>10413367
Ok redpill me on pschiatric drugs then.

>>10414065
What point? Argument by analogy is the lowest form of discourse. Psychology has a massive reproducibility problem, and bona fide disorders belong to the realms of physiology and medicine.

>>10414761
>once again ignores all but one point and goes ad hominem
goodbye

>>10414781
I was responding to the previous post, which contained a shitty argument by analogy. Your follow-up also contained a shitty argument by analogy. I addressed the specific issues about genetics and neuroscience with "bona fide disorders are physiology and medicine, not psychology." Nowhere did any of my responses contain an ad hominem. Screeching "ad hominem!" loudly over and over might convince brainlets, but not anyone paying attention. OCD is not real. Depression is, but the solution is addressing the problems in life causing it, not pills.

>>10411305

No.

>>10411305
Im not sure if they're sciences, but psychiatry is borderline unethical.

Psychoanalysis is not science at all.

Biology, Physics, Chemistry are science.

And I say this as a medfag, most of medicine is not science, but psychology is pure pseudoscience.

>>10411305
parts of it are science, stuff like psychoanalysis isn't and will never be.
It will forever be stuck somewhere between science and philosophy

>>10415793
Cant you say the same thing about theoretical physists, they to are stuck between science and philosophy (and mathematics)