/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11042275
BECAUSE ITS FUCKING GAY THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No but seriusly I think it's because the stuy of the mind is more complex and not determined then real fields of science were there's absolut proof like 1+1=2

>>11042275
Its kike bullshit made by freud

>>11042275
Maybe ask psychology?

>>11042296
Say what you want about Freud, but the phenomenon of "ambivalence" is definitely very real

>>11042275
lmao, he was high on xans during all his ramblings.

>>11042296
That's psychoanalysis.
Not all psychology is shit, evolutionary psychology is interesting (even though it basically biologists and anthropologists doing psychology).

>>11042275

Essentially unprovable in a rigorous way.

calling psychology science is like calling predicting someone’s fingernail length based on the size of their dump science, except what i just described is probably closer to science than psychology is
there’s far too much guess work and assumptions not based in fact to call it a science

>>11042275
Most of their bulshit studies are not reproducible.

36% reproducibility, 90% of papers overstate the statistical significance of their findings, 25% of researchers admitted to fudging their data, 98% of top 2000 psychologists are left leaning

Psychology is the attempted rationalization of Marxism, not a science

Psychology - Intellectual masturbation

Philosophy - Mental gymnastics

Science - A reaction to organized religion and studies the objective world

Math - pure ideological game

>>11042275
Advancements in neurobiology are making it obsolete

People hate on psychology to make themselves feel superior, obviously it's a science

>>11042460
>Psychology is the attempted rationalization of Marxism, not a science
Fucking cringed

>>11042886
>obviously it's a science
elaborate

>>11043313
>elaborate
no

>>11042326
but thats the point nobody gets. the irrational cannot be understood by the rational, its subconscious, dreamlogic, religion etc. these things are very real in their consequences, yet cannot be understood with logic! It marks the limit of enlightment!

>>11042275
It's a science whose object is the human thought and behavior. That comes with a shitload of problems, but it is not a fundamental problem in psychology, it is because of having humans as an object.
Repro crisis is a disgrace, but also part of a more widespread academic fuck up called publish or perish.

>>11042275
>Why isn't psychology a scientific field?
Psychologists do not use the scientific method.

>>11043435
Many fields of it do tho

>>11043486
Yes, like personality psychology. However, many do not, therefore, it renders the statement "psychology uses the scientific method" false. Subfields of psychology can and do use the scientific method, that doesn't mean the entire field of psychology is science.

>>11043371
>the irrational cannot be understood by the rational
Indeed, there is a struggle... in every human heart... between the rational and the irrational... between good and evil. And good does not... always triumph.

>>11042275
it doesn't deal with physical phenomena directly

>>11042841

>>11042886
Much of what we know as psychology in the past 100 years is founded on mostly unprovable and unrepeatable studies, and since a science requires the utilisation of the scientific method (you might have heard of it, kinda a big deal), psychology is therefore NOT a science

These kind of threads get created often enough I'll compile an infographic detailing exactly why in the future. It has nothing to do with ego boosting and everything to do with separating conjecture from facts

Another culprit is theoretical physics and pure math, both of which have less than 10% reproducibility, making them guesses more than anything

>>11042841
If only you knew that "science", aka materialism as well as math, are both branches of philosophy

>>11043362
>you're wrong!
Could you explain why, even in as basic a way as possible?
>NO!

>>11042275
Because it's results are not reproducible and are arbitrary. If you want to truly understand the brain than neuroscience is the way to go. Also psychology is a scam mostly to get the American public addicted to meth and opiates.

>>11043693
Based

>>11044382

It is a science, its just so ifinently complicated that we are still stuck at the level of hypothesis. There are so many points in history where fools like you dismissed fields of study only to be forgotten about when the breakthroughs were made.

>>11044388
and philosophy is just a branch of animism and metaphysics.

Grug guess this means spirit in sky real. Universe and physics bow to creator. Sky spirit have plan for Grug.

checkmate atheists.

>>11044429
metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. what are you, fucking retarded?

>>11042275
A scientific field is what uses scientific method in theory. In practice, many fields in academia are de facto consider science, despite not always delivering the standard what you might expect from natural sciences.

The problem with psychology is the downfall of statistical understanding in new grad students, who therefore lack ability to make credible research. Second, the social sciences are politiced in many countries, which contributes the lack of quality of academic papers. Finally, it's good to understand how difficult it is to prove causality extensively in many fields of science - for an example, Medical fields suffered from same reproduction crisis for various of reasons. One reason is simply that we don't know really know how our bodies or brain work, and therefore are left with comparative studies which by all certainty lacked real knowledge of specific mechanism of our body that really was the cause all shit.

Psychology is a field of science, but lack of standards hurt any field.

>>11042275
>psychology

Not science nor math. GTFO

>>11042316
>evolutionary psychology is interesting
Evolpsyche is absolutely, positively, NOT science

>>11043371
>le verbosity
You are not as smart as you think you are

>>11043371
Still not science

>>11042275
It is, though for obvious reasons it hits too close to home where misfit toy-builders and such gather to plot the destruction of neurotypicals they resent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYy1GXaNNY

>>11045126
Why not?

psychology is not science because the brain is a black box
psychology doesn't try to understand how that black box operates it just feeds data into it and makes assumptions based on what the box shits out most commonly

>>11045202
Sitting on a couch and guessing where behaviors come from, not doing any experimentation, is not science.

>>11045128
you’re retarded

>>11045208
Thats Freud. Go outside more often

>>11045212
No you

>>11045217
Putting people in a room and then saying "they acted like this because blah blah blah therefore this is science CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" is not science

>>11045218
The post you responded to was vacuous antirational infantilism but you are still an idiot for thinking that it was in any way verbose.

>>11042286
This. Empirical data is very difficult to obtain regarding psychology. The human mind is just as baffling now as it has been forever.

>>11045226
>vacuous antirational infantilism
lmao

>>11042275
I think psychology is pretty interesting, but it's definitely not a science. The mind is inherently too irrational to be looked at with studied with scientific rigor, let alone predicted, especially repeated.

>>11044382
>theoretical physics and pure math, both of which have less than 10% reproducibility
Do you know what you are even talking about? Theoretical physics is simply a branch of physics that deals with creating rigorous hypothesis to be later tested. That's why there are often several competing theories in many fields, regarding many subjects. Secondly, pure math literally isn't reproducible. It's just logic. If is shown to be the case once, it is has been that way for all time and forever shall be that way until all time.

>>11045219
And you obviously haven't looked up the definition of evolutionary psychology.

>>11045208
Obviously the theory should be constructed to agree with the experimental results of evolutionary biology and psychology (though I do have reservations regarding psychology and it's standards of scientific rigor)

>>11044429
This might come as a shock to you but most truth is an emergent property, not the sum definition of the parts which compose it, as you're blinded to believe by the cult of scientism

To say a person is nothing but a collection of atoms says nothing of that person, just as reducing a painting to its pigments says nothing of its picture

Only a fool believes the scientific method is universally applicable, and is the best way of deriving trut, or value for that matter

>>11042275
It's a very young field, like sociology, and suffers the same problems, it's working material (human beings) is very fickle and there are a drought of sufficiently efficacious models by which to analyze those fickle humans. It's prone to having issues with reproducing results and prone to being abused for ideological projects which are fundamentally unscientific in nature. A lot of people in the field are IMO, pseudoscientists, as I also believe in regards to sociology.

>>11042275
It is one of those sciences that once it proves something and it becomes accepted it is no long called psychology, so it always looks like it is all working in murkery.

>>11045217
Freud was a sick fuck that wanted to fuck his own mother

>>11042309
kek. this
trannies not btfo afterall

>>11045091
climate science is in fact closer to engineering than science

>>11043313
>Make model of how the humans behave
>See if it matches reality
>Refine model
This is how psychology works, tell me that's not science

>>11044382
The replicability crisis is an issue, but it is one that is being addressed and is not unique to psychology. Hypotheses in psychology still live and die according to evidence and the scientific method.

>>11042275
It is in my mind - anything that studies nature and its phenomena is science. Since we're a part of nature, logically the study of our behaviour is a science.

>>11042275
because psychoanalisis tries to unravel the true workings of the mind which is too ultra complex and subjective for it ever to be expressed in objective scientific laws, because of that, as long as we're human our behaviour will be closer to magic, literature, or dreams.

Everything is ultra interconnected, and everything is super tricky, dependand upon interpretation and has many meanings in psychology thats why scientific reason has no business in it.

>>11047510
>the mind is too complex for scientific examination
Shit take

>>11042296
Freud was so shit at psychology other psychologically inclined people got raged up trying to fix the stuff Freud contributed with, which in turn led to a huge leap in psychology advancement.

>forced to take a psychology course
>99% of research is survey based, asking people how they feel
>It's conclusions are how the researcher feels

Psychology wears a veneer of science, once you look closely you realise it's bullshit.

>>11048818
Facts don't care about our feelings....

>>11047494
>anything that studies nature and its phenomena is science.
No, science is specifically the rigorous application of the scientific method to the study of nature and natural phenomenon, not just studying anything natural from any random perspective since if you can call imagination and subjective experience part of nature, then there isn't anything you can logically exclude from being part of nature.

>logically the study of our behaviour
Behavior isn't always logical, though, serendipity, happenstance, and coincidence can account for just as much as clear sound reasoning for driving most people's actions.

>>11048818
>>99% of research is survey based, asking people how they feel
There is literally nothing wrong with this.
You want to study how human's behave, what makes them happy, what makes them deranged, why they act like they do. So you design and control the stimuli you apply to a large number of human minds and ask them how it makes them feel, how they behave, or how they say they would behave. Then you do some statistics and try to make a model to describe all human minds in this situation as best you can.
If you can't fully control your stimuli (maybe infeasible, maybe unethical) then go out into the world and look for poor humans who have had whatever stimuli forced upon them and ask them how they feel, how they would behave in certain scenarios.

Maybe your model has shit predictive power, try a new one see if you can do better. Try getting more data.

Maybe it only produces good predictions in specific contrived scenarios, that's no different from specific phenomenological models in other scientific fields.

Maybe your model's predictive power is limited by the nature of what you're trying to study. For example given hypothetical scenarios people might unintentionally give dishonest responses. That doesn't mean that you didn't use the scientific method to guide your hypothesis before testing it. That doesn't stop you from trying to improve your investigation, like turning your hypothetical scenarios into real ones. It doesn't stop your model from potentially helping people with mental illnesses, or helping people overcome mental challenges.

>>11042286
we even aren´t sure about what the fuck is our object of analysis...
>>11042296
B F Skinner would kill you with a rat ust for saying that shit.
>>11042329
this
>>11042426
also this
>>11042886
>obviously it's a science
it´s poor man science, i`m psychologist and i`m pretty dissapointed about how psychology built it´s knowledge, it´s fucking atrocious to be honest.

>>11045091
>The problem with psychology is the downfall of statistical understanding in new grad students.
that was a serious problem 50 uears ago, we have a more difficult problem now: real science evolved from very narrow statistical focus to new paradigms about data analysis, psychology is way far from that, there are psychologist talking right now about fucking linear correlations... yes, while you read this shit someone is talking about correlations between simple variables to explain complex behaviors, we are fucking doomed and all the trending shit and absurd shit like choaching is demolishing the few pseudo serious foundations of our discipline. I want to wake up guys, psychology is fucking dead by now, i have no fucking hope anymore.

>>11045165
fair enough

>>11045128
If you call that verbosity, i feel sorry for you!

>>11045226
>vacuous antirational infantilism

>>11050902
Go back, faggot.

>>11042460
Sauce?

>>11050907
you big fat meanie

>>11045226
I can smell your virginity from here

Psychology PhD student here. Psychology is a science, in that it applies the scientific method to the study of psychological and social phenomena. That doesn't mean it's a perfect science, however. Pretty much any type of research design you could choose has inherent limitations, so it's incredibly difficult to achieve a perfect understanding of any psychological relationship. We just do our best to produce useful but imperfect maps of the territory.

The problems always come when people (often psychologists themsleves, admittedly) don't sufficiently note the limitations of their research findings. This isn't helped by the fact that teaching within psychology is typically very bad. On a typical undergraduate degree you'll learn next to nothing about the topics that underpin psychology as a science (e.g. the philosophy of science, probability theory, sampling theory, inference), and so we end up with lots of bad psychologists. To be honest I'm probably one of them - I'm trying my hardest to re-learn all of these topics with the proper depth, but I still make lots of mistakes that go completely unnoticed by my supervisor and the reviewers who decided my papers should be published.

The law decides what humans think and how they act, so what is the point of psychology? The only possible purpose for it would be to subvert the law.

>>11042275
it's a lot closer than any other social science
IQ is probably the only thing they've done that is real science, only /sci/ fags that have less than 90 will disagree with that,

>>11052145
Yikes, don't let Nassim Nicholas Taleb see this

>>11052108
>Pretty much any type of research design you could choose has inherent limitations
why is it psychology is turned on it's head over 70% of the time then? following the scientific method that shouldn't be the case, how could you possibly feel decent about learning a field that is that fly by night, it's not improbably that literally everything that you're learning is false and will change by the time you're finished your studies. I've had about 15 shrinks in my life, and in my experience it's all shit. they told my mom I had ASPD (it was just called APD back when they were trying to diagnose me at EIGHT) because I said I didn't feel anything about the deaths in my family. feeling is subjective, to try and say how I feel about something is their own projection and I had that from them multiple times. I lost my father young and I had some doctors say I had a need for a father figure (maybe accurate) and the others 2/3 say that my mother was a controlling cunt that was out to get me (totally fucking insane and their own projections) the last shrink I had told me I couldn't possibly get a job in the field I wanted based on the fact that his wife was in the field and she's 'really weally welly smwart so I can't possible do it.. boohoo'. yet the odds of her being a better candidate are about 1 in 2 million. psychiatrists are all fucking cunts that try to take out their insecurities on their patients. get a real job

>>11052122

>>11052157
>not understand the layers

>>11052154
By "turned on its head over 70% of the time", I'm guessing you're referring to the replication crisis? That's typically within social psychology, not clinical psychology (which the rest of your post refers to). Psychology is so broad that it contains lots of different disciplines that are almost completely separate from one another.

Psychotherapy is just as much an art as a science, so your bad experience with shrinks could be down to any number of reasons. Also, many shrinks are NOT psychologists - you criticise psychiatrists, for example, but they're medically-trained professionals who typically take a slightly different approach to psychologists. I don't really like them either, if I'm being honest (although lots of clinical psychologists are not much better). My favoured approach to psychotherapy is Jungian, but that's very rare these days, partly because it's impossible to study the effectiveness of Jungian psychotherapy using scientific methods (the inherent reductivity of science makes it an essentially pointless process).

I should add that I'm a research psychologist though, not a clinician, and my field of study is non-clinical. The above is just my opinion, and I have no formal training in clinical psych beyond a couple of undergraduate modules.

>>11042275
Because hard science is hypocritical. They take a few miracles for granted and assume we don't see though the bullshit. Big bang, evolution of consciousness, epigenetic change etc. Nobody is up for the challenge of dovetailing feels into physics or biology. The problem is so hard, they simply write it off.

>>11047899
>huge leap in psychology advancement

How so? I'm genuinely intrigued.

>>11045219
dude, stop, your replies are cringe af

>>11047748
Actually the human mind is too complex for the human mind

>>11047899
Freud didn't have the benefit of the social scientific method to work with. Even if you believe 90% of Freud's theories are completely wrong, you should still acknowledge he was a great thinker and contributed enormously to the field

>>11048818
What instruments would you suggest are more appropriate for the study of subjective phenomena? And your third point is just plain wrong. In a well-designed quantitative survey study, the researcher's bias will not impact the interpretation of the study at all. In qualitative studies the researcher brings their own bias into the interpretation of the results, but that's well known and one of the main reasons why we should be very careful about making inferences based on purely qualitative research.

>>11047748
It's true. Look up complex systems theory. The mind is so complex that you'll never be able to model it accurately, which is why we use simple models as context-specific guidelines instead.

>>11052271
Modelling how an agent will (attempt to) act on goals is very simple though.

>>11052271
>The system of observers and observation is so complex no component part will ever be able to model it accurately.

Unless you're talking about the Quantum Observer, which'd be me.

>>11052276
>Light goes in eyes
>Extrapolate steps recorded
>Apply to external device/machine/physical phenomena

>>11052276
To a certain extent, but any inferences you make are still likely to be greatly restrained (e.g. by the characteristics of the sample, by the cultural context, by the artificiality of the paradigm, etc).

>>11052277
True, sorry Quantum Observer

>>11052280
Eventually an observer HAS to self-describe, even if it is to simply act as a signpost or waypoint for other sapiosexuals.

The ensuing ego battle that happens after going public or engaging larger groups is more to do with established interests rather than any genuine intellectual argument that requires closure beyond, "But what about muh bed-time theory?!"

>>11052268
Thats fair, but the scientific method has been around since way before Freud was born. Freud might have been a great thinker but he was more a pervert than a researcher, which led him into having some weird thoughts about human behavior. Had he tried to apply the scientific method into his work, it mightve had other names not related to the male penis.

>>11052200
about 6 years after Freuds death, the Journal of Clinical Psychology was published, which is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering psychological research, assessment, and practice, to name one thing.

It's a legitimate field of study but lacks the rigor of the hard sciences since it's epistemologically independent of the "hierarchy of sciences". You can derive chemistry from physics, biology from chemistry, and neurology from biology, but that's where the chain ends because we don't yet have a sufficiently complete model for how consciousness and behavior arise from neurological processes. Once we establish that link then psychology will be on surer footing, but until then psych researchers just have to keep throwing reasonable-sounding shit at the wall and hope that their peers can reproduce whatever sticks.