[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 9 KB, 251x251, 1306152715914s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3967082 No.3967082 [Reply] [Original]

Why isn't psychology considered pseudo-science?

>> No.3967087

If you're not trolling, you're very stupid and underread.

>> No.3967089

Lobby is too strong.

>> No.3967096

I think you're confusing psychology (the study of the mental process) with unqualified counseling ("and how does that make you feel?").

>> No.3967092

>>3967082
because people here don't even understand the very concept of science

anything where you produce knowledge using the scientific method is science

>> No.3967104

>>3967096
\thread

>> No.3967119

>>3967096
Don't you mean neurology?

>> No.3967123

FRUED WAZ A GENIUZ STFU.

In all seriousness, I think there's a lot of serious science in psychology, just gets a bad name from the tremendous amount of non-science in there. Also no anomalous results lol.

>> No.3967126

>>3967119
Neurology deals more with the NS, especially the CNS. Neurology really is the study of neurons and how the brain structures communicate with each other.

>> No.3967129

>>3967126
>Neurology really is the study of neurons and how the brain structures communicate with each other.
i.e.mental proccess

>> No.3967137

2 words: Rosenhan experiment

>> No.3967142

>>3967092
>using the scientific method is science
Now how would that apply to psychology?

>> No.3967144

>>3967123
Yes, Freud really was a genius. Moreso than Einstein or whatever anyway.

>> No.3967145

>>3967092
>anything where you produce knowledge using the scientific method is science
If that were true, the shit scientologist believe in is science

>> No.3967147

>>3967129
>herpderp

No. Two bureaucrats is not a government.

>> No.3967152
File: 30 KB, 400x521, lron.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3967152

>>3967082
It's not just that, it's dangerous pseudo-science.

Embrace Dianetics for true healing.

>> No.3967156

>>3967142
The same way it applies to every other science.

>> No.3967158

Because the government uses it to help it attack the credibility of normal people in court. So its authoritarian, but not a true science.

>> No.3967160

>>3967152
I read the book. It's a pretty interesting concept and I find it better to explain the mind than psychology. Sadly, his theories were shadowed by the faggotry of scientologists.

>> No.3967163

>>3967160
You really think that "engrams" are responsible, as he says, for all psychoses?

>> No.3967164

psychology is a mixed bag, neuropsychology is pretty balls to walls amazing and is developing fast. Things such as discursive psychology on the other hand... not so much.

Don't be an idiot and associate Freud with modern psychology, he was an epic bullshitter and nobody believes a word he says.

>> No.3967166

>>3967082

I don't understand the hate for Freud, he paved the way for our knowledge and understand of the brain.

We don't call Aristotle a pseudo-scientist.


Many areas of psychology are legit science, others are highly speculatory and make weak conclusions from observations.

>> No.3967167

>>3967129
A mental process like fear can be studied more than just by how the amygdala is stimulated. For instance, in social psychology, the branch of psychology that focuses more on the influence of others (are they real, instrinsic or extrinsic) onto an individual, fear won't be studied in term of electric current or hormonal response as much as it would be with behaviours, emotions or cognitions.

Neuropsychology is more reductionist than social psychology, for instance.

In sum, the notion of mental process contains more than just the mere physical reaction of neurons; it contains also cognitions and emotions.

Psychology is really the study of mental processes (cognitions and emotions "psychological") and behaviours (behaviours and emotions "physiological").

>> No.3967173

>>3967163
It's a better way to look at it than just name every single cause with a different name and relate it to bullshit like 'your parents didn't love you enough'

>> No.3967180

>>3967144

im not trying to feed troll here


it is the same Freud who thought scientifically, men are always superior

>> No.3967183

>>3967092
so economics is science too right?

>> No.3967184

They use the scientific method like all other sciences.

What I find disheartening is that people actually think it would be wise to throw them out of the sciences altogether. That's counter productive because we want them to learn about human behavior and we want them to use the scientific method to do so. If we completely discount them from science then they'd be free to make up whatever bullshit they want and sell it. Some people pretend they already do that, I call those people idiots.

Sure, they're not as rigorous as physics or geology but they do benefit humanity by trying to understand why humans work and by holding themselves to the scientific method we make sure that, for the most part, their work has some meaning.

>> No.3967187

>>3967183
Some aspects yes.

>> No.3967202

>>3967166
Aristotle didn't claim to do science, he just philosophized about how things should be.
Freud concluded that since he could not understand the mind, nobody ever could, thus it did not make any logical sense and needed another logic for it. He then went on to make incredibly bad assumptions about nearly everything and draw flashy conclusions that did not match with reality, which was no surprise since he did not test his theories because they were "untestable" and never healed one single patient in his lifetime copping-out that it was impossible in the first place.
Then he called it science.

>> No.3967209

>>3967167
You forgot to mention how social psychology is based on Marx and Engels, Lamarckist theories of evolution, dialectic logic, general priority for philosophy over evidence and a method that consists basically of "if reality disagrees with method, reality is wrong"

>> No.3967211

>>3967137
Thank you so much for showing me this, it's hilarious.

>> No.3967216

>>3967202
Many of his theories have developed into accepted psychological concepts, i.e. his crowd behavioural theory.

You have to understand the times he was coming from, for the times, the technology and the understanding it was simply untestable and unimaginable.

He wasn't a great scientist, but i certainly wouldn't call him a hack.

>> No.3967218

>>3967209
>You forgot to mention things I made up

ftfy

>> No.3967233

>>3967216
Nearly all of his theories regarding everything have been explained in logical and scientific ways in a much simpler and elegant form. The fact that he got one marginally right doesn't really save him, ever heard about a broken clock being right twice a day?

Behavioral studies arose merely 20 years after his time and they were not terribly complicated so that they required a major genius to figure it out.
In his time science was taking enormous steps and he rejected the scientific method altogether, often hiding failed theories or ad-hocking them to infinity, calling all peer-reviewers fags, plagiarizing other writers and then coping-out by saying that he did it unconsciously and I will not let you go unchecked without remarking again that he failed utterly to produce one single successful case of therapy.

>> No.3967238

>>3967137
Sweet...

>> No.3967239

>>3967218
DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS
Mistook you for social-historic psychology. Translation error.

>> No.3967248

>>3967233

I'm pretty sure his ideas about the mind were revolutionary, scientific or not.

>> No.3967252

>>3967248
Anyone can have a revolutionary idea, just stay near people that do drugs and wait for a bit.
Doesn't mean shit.

>> No.3967263

>>3967129
>id est mental proccess
>That is mental process
What? Even if that's actually what you meant, it's a pretty odd use of I.E.

>> No.3967262

>>3967252
Went from a half decent argument to flat out trolling.

>> No.3967261

>>3967248
eh, Jung was the real revolutionary in that regard. Freud was just lazy.

>> No.3967272

>>3967263
No, it's totally normal usage. It's just that the content is incorrect.

>> No.3967310

>>3967262
Suppose you are in a discussion with a person that rejects logic. Do you use logic?

>> No.3967321

>>3967310
So what you're saying is, there's no point in using logic to talk to you?
Ok.

>> No.3967340

Freud ideas of the uncounscious were pretty revolutionary in psychology. To say that "the ego is not master in its own house" takes some god damn ball knowing that religion always said that humans had the innate ability to know what's good from what's bad and choose between the two.

The unconscious is a real phenomenon of human psyche; every competent psychologists gives to a certain degree credibility to this idea that the mechanisms hide things from consciousness.

The system of energy that his the body, however, might be more proned to criticisms since it is so vague. Like many concepts in psychoanalysis, the libido is a term that is ambiguous - remember that for Freud it implied only sexuality while for Jung it meant many other things.

>> No.3967365
File: 6 KB, 180x197, images-1..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3967365

>>3967340
Skinner frowns upon your pre-scientific reasoning.

>> No.3967367
File: 152 KB, 640x480, laughingsluts5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3967367

>>3967340
>subconscious = mechanism that hides things from the conscious mind

LOLNO

>> No.3967374

>>3967367
Ooh, a strawman attack! You must be in fifth grade by now, right?

>> No.3967396

>>3967374

no strawman here. that was what u meant.

>> No.3967421

>>3967367

Are you implying introspection is completly transparent?

Because there are a couple of experiments that would say "fuck you sir"

Basicly, a guy with a defective corpus callosum, which made impossible (or very poor) the communication between hemispheres, was induced to raise a hand, when they asked their left hemisphere about the action, he made up justifications for his actions but when they asked his right hemisphere he answered "i dont know". We rationalize stuff.

>> No.3967426
File: 46 KB, 570x396, automaton1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3967426

>>3967367
The fuck did you get that from? Mechanisms like censorship from the ego and the uncounscious stop things to even access the subconscious, even more the consciousness in the second freudian topic. See defense mechanisms and censorship.

>>3967365
Pre-scientific reasoning? About what? I didn't even use any logic or arguments. Heck, I barely even wasn't defending a point since Freud isn't part of my favorite theorists.

>> No.3967430

>>3967396
Ok, my bad. You must be in first grade, judging by your reading comprehension.

>> No.3968165

>>3967340

Nice non-nonsensical gibberish bro, Freud didn't know how to science, so in the spirit of this board he should be condemned.