/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4303560

is a scientific method used to find out new things related to this branch? Then yes.

Yes.

Psychology isn't.

Cognitive neuroscience is an academic field concerned with the scientific study of biological substrates underlying cognition, with a specific focus on the neural substrates of mental processes. It addresses the questions of how psychological/cognitive functions are produced by the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology and neuropsychology.

nope

>>4303564
Psychology IS a science.

Psychiatry (which is a method of 'treatment' of psychological 'disorders' which are nothing more than an inoffensive way of saying suppressing undesirable behavior in people) is NOT a science, however, because it is again, a method of 'treating' nonexistent 'diseases' of the mind based on an EXCUSE to validate the EXISTENCE of said disorders (the theory of 'chemical imbalance').

>>4303597
I think you should justify this response.

Mind if I partially hijack this thread? K thanks.

What exactly are my career options if I want to study abstract cognitive science? Where do you get employment if you want to try to build new theoretical models?

And what do I do for education if I want to do stuff in this field? I'm a second years maths undergrad.

>>4303619
I think I know where you're going with this. I came up with the "new" theoretical models you may have in mind as well.
I might give you a protip but I am scared of you.

>>4303634

So youre afraid that hes a competitor?

>>4303597
>mfw MITfags browse /sci/

Why wouldn't it be?

>>4303641
If he's going to "compete" with me, I have a reason to worry about him fucking up my shit.
I'm not sure if a lot of us are aware here exactly WHOSE cause our "research" ultimately benefits.
I always said that when a new discovery is made, the powers that be immediately seek out answers to two main questions: can we market it, and can we weaponize it?

>>4303657
What do you mean when you say 'new theoretical models'? I think I have some interesting thoughts and promising lines of enquiry, but I am not at all technically educated in this area yet.

Of course, I am very mindful of what you're talking about. But the way I figure it, somebody is going to crack it sooner or later, and it would be better if that person had positive intentions.

>people not answering OPs question

>>4303604

I have a theory on depression.

Lets say that a happy individual will suffer from a supposed "chemical imbalance" or as most know it, as depression. Then lets say that the depression will cause him to think about "negative" things, negative, but true things. Then lets say that his chemical imbalance is reduced to a normal state via drug treatment, but his negative thoughts still remain. The negative thoughts will forever remain as a sad truth in the persons mind, regardless of the level of serotonin active in his brain. Then the negative thoughts will slowly drag him down to "chemical imbalance" again. To live completely happy, would be to live in complete denial of reality.

>>4303712
> people ignore the question 'is science X a science'?
> people just talk about 'science X'
> gets mad

aspie meter overload

it has science in the name!

Yes

>>4303692
I am postulating that it's already long been "cracked" and that dystopic "new world order" the arrival of which everyone's been shitting themselves over isn't really coming. Those cute little "puzzles" and all are meaningless distractions. Welcome the old boss, same as the new boss but less fantastic.

>>4303715
also
>To live completely happy, would be to live in complete denial of reality.

Exactly. Here's a huge scientific breakthrough I arrived at by calculating 1=1=/=0.

If there's shit that happens to get you down, chances are unless you're some sort of masochist, you might get a little upset. Huge chemical imbalance there, only to be cured by massive doses of alcohol.

And yes, a lot of people you see who happily live their mediocre lives ARE in a perpetual state of denial and ignorance by choice, or under pressure from others around them who they might turn to for help (whose advice is often to just distract themselves and "focus on other things" to "stay positive"). Sad truth.

BAMP

>>4303619
>build new theoretical models?
a university, only
No one else cares to pay you to do that.

But, obviously, you should learn what the existing models are before you assume you have something to add to it.

ITT: People who get all their information on psychology from television...
Fine, so you have a "theory" about something... just because you don't find contradictions doesn't make it true.. especially if you don't know shit about the topic at hand other than maybe wikipedia/depression ...
There is a good reason why psychology is taught in universities...