/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10485330
Yes.

>>10485330
No.

>>10485491
Yes.

There are now more yes than no, therefore the scientific community has concluded that the discipline is a science.

>>10485330
Yes.

50% of psychology studies were proven to be false.

>>10485607
So?

>>10485609
literal pseudoscience

>>10485330

no. funnily enough all psychologists i meet are becoming "clinical statisticians".
and yes, statistics is not math

>>10485610
That's not what pseudoscience is, but ok.

>>10485632
"a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

With things like p-hacking, it can definitely be interpreted as a pseudoscience

Yes there is.

Government educated psychology is a Con though.

I'm a better psychologist that all Government slaves, it serves it's sceintific purpose.

Imagine a kill sport; knowing someone's route around town, knowing what they might do, this IS science.

>>10485632
"Science is one of many tools which psychology and practitioners can employ, but most psychological and psychiatric theories violate one or more of three essential tenets of the scientific method: limiting theorizing to the natural world, basing theories on objective observations and measurements, and proposing falsifiable theories. Due to the intense focus on ‘the mind’ rather than the brain in much of psychology and psychiatry, the non-falsifiable metaphysical claims making up their core are understandably quite far from science." ~ Mark Dunn, Quora Even beyond normal p-hacking psychology is fundamentally a pseudoscience.

>>10485883
i agree with that sentiment, but quora is unironically shit. honestly /sci/ is more reliable most of the time

>>10485906
you can choose to filter out the shit.

>>10485330
Sure. Plenty of biochem and physiology goes into it.

>>10485616
>and yes, statistics is not math

>>10485616
What makes them think that they are better than actual statisticians? Just going to college for 4 years to learn psychology teaches you nothing about how to do rigorous and correct statistics. No wonder your field is having a reproduction crisis, every psychologist I've ever met couldn't tell the difference between a t distribution and a standard normal.

>>10485906
>/sci/ is more reliable most of the time

>>10486082
>t. unironically thinks quora is good

>>10486098
>t. applies his primitive tribalism to shitposting boards

>>10486107
>t. defends website where absolute bullshit gets upvoted to being the “official” answer
https://www.quora.com/Did-NASA-fake-their-first-moon-landing

>>10485330
None what so ever. There's no repeatable study.

>>10485607
A lot of cognitive neuroscis/psychs are concerned with this matter and the education on statistics and methodology is increasing. Yes, there's a shameful replication crisis although the measures to counter this problem have also been well reported recently (such as not publishing negative results)

And by no means I want to defend psychology but I've read that also a considerable part of medicine reports are not repeatable and we are not doubting about medicine as a science.