/sci/ - Science & Math

too soft

>highly subjective phenomena

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html

If it makes predictions which can be tested, confirmed and replicated, it's science. If not, then it's not yet science.

Psychology could be a science, if it was practiced with proper humility and rigour.

Where it actually is, though, it's called other things, like "neuroscience". What we call "psychology" is more of a pseudoscience, like economics, because they dress it up like science without that essential characteristic of intellectual discipline.

Tell me why it should be considered a science.

>>4822177

Science isnt about making predictions.

In psychology you can use statistics to find connections between certain phenomena. A statistical hypothesis is still a hypothesis that we can test.

>>4822197
Nope.

0/100

Statistics != scientific models

>>4822207

Models? Models are easy to make. I think the problem we see with all these softy sciences is that they can make models like they are nothing.

"Oh here is the 7 part model of human cognativist perspective"

Models are cheap, and not inherently scientific.

certain aspects are not. clynical psychology cant be tested like neuroscience can be, so its not really a science, however neuroscience and other sciences like it are considered psychology even though they fit more into testable results rather than specific anicdotes

>>4822211
>neuroscience and other sciences like it are considered psychology
Psychology and neuroscience are two distinct field. One is science is the other is pseudo-science.

One studies the brain, the other studies the mind.

>>4822189
this

>>4822214
>implying those are two different things

>>4822216
One exists the other doesn't. Read>>4822174 for a better explanation of psychology.

>>4822209
>>4822197
Yeah, because if those models don't predict anything testable, they are not scientific.

Predictability is part of what makes a model scientific, with the exception of those phenomena which are inherently working based on randomness. The uncertainty principle makes prediction not only practically impossible but also theoretically impossible. But that doesn't mean science should be anything you apply maths to. If your model doesn't predict anything at all about the behaviour of a bunch of phenomena, you're not doing science.

>>4822219
I've always considered them the same thing, just people who refer to mind see it as this abstract entity, like a soul, where as people who realize you have a brain and nothing more are more driven by reason and the notion that we can test our brains under contolled conditions.

I do agree though under certain definitions, the mind does not exist. my definition just happens to be different I suppose.

>>4822135
It is though, just a soft science. The reason why it's soft because it isn't tangible, it's all in the mind, and the patient in question can just as easily fake whatever his mental state is and still be just as difficult to prove/disprove as if he actually had said mental state. And sciences like psychology and sociology more close to philosophy than hard sciences like chemistry and physics. And yes, this is a psychology undergrad writing this post.

It lacks a method to objectively test with controls

>>4822221

I think we are in agreement, I just take issue with the word prediction.

We test hypotheses. Observations can confirm or deny a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has yet to be disproven by an observation.

A model relies on the idea that reality is going to conform to it. We are assuming future observations will resemble the observations that support our theory/hypothesis. There is no reason to presume that, but its practical. The actual business of science has nothing to do with making predictions. But yes, "predictions" are a natural consequence of understanding reality.

>>4822225
Psychologist will argue that there is such a thing as a mental illness, yet all serious "mental" illnesses like schizophrenia have shown to be physical in nature. They cannot be treated solely on psychological therapy, that's because the behavioural "dysfunction" is a symptom and you cannot cure a disease by treating a symptom.

>>4822223 here
I also forgot to mention that psychology does follow the scientific method, but it seems a lot of science undergrads and majors keep forgetting that there's more than one scientific method out there, each method taking a variety of form and function. Unless you're talking about therapeutic psychology where a doctor has to diagnose and treat a patient, then yeah (unless they're one of those old school psychologists that keep count of the consistencies of a patients characteristic and graph them out) a lot of that is going off of impressions instead.

>>4822135
Psychology is a social science or a soft science, other examples of social sciences are: economics and sociology

Ah, now that we are on the subject. Does /sci/ know which molecules are responsible for each emotion?

>>4822237
Let me elaborate on the mind delusion.

Let's say that I tell you that to have babies you need to transfer a part of your "soul" to a woman, to do so you need to have sex. To prove that to you I decide to have sex with a woman. We later learn that she's pregnant, therefore my concept of "soul transferring" is proven.

Actually all that I would have shown is that having sex with a woman can result in pregnancy, I have yet to show the relation between sex and the "soul".

It's the same in psychology with the concept of the "mind".

For example, depression which is not rooted in the non-existing mind but rooted in the brain's chemistry is treated by psychiatrist with CBT, but http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8871414 shows that the therapy has no significant effect on depression. Because they're trying to cure you on the basis that the disease exists in the "mind".

Psychology is in the state that medicine was in 300 years ago, based on tradition and opinions.

When psycho analysis was practiced no one claimed it was science then. It's more of a spiritual healing. Now certain people try to call it science for political reasons. It's without doubt a trojan horse.

>>4822262
Also many people confuse psychology with neuroscience, so they think that the latter legitimises the former.

Psychology has it's place but it's usually when used with another subject.

E.g. I do Biological Anthropology but I'm forced to do some of the social side as well. It's helpful when doing ethnographies to sometimes focus on an individual and see how they form schemas and affects. A psychological review of an individual can validate results obtained by studying the larger group that the individual belongs to. The problem with studying humans and society is that they are all different and so replicating results is rather difficult however you can see patterns of behaviour that are almost universal.

This is a good book in my opinion
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Developing-Mind-Relationships-Interact/dp/1572307404

>>4822232
A science which never produced any prediction I think it can't be called science. Just making hypotheses and disproving them doesn't mean you know anything using that method. It points to you having a method which is not adequate at studying a particular phenomenon. So, that's why I think predictive power should be one of the criteria for defining science.

If it never predicted anything with its models, it's not science. You can call it a field which uses scientific method to study its object, but which is not yet a science, ie a field which knows (in advance).

>>4822268
>>4822268
Biological Anthropology. How much biology is involved? As far as I understand, not much.

It seems like more of a macro science, than a micro science if that makes sense. Like applied statistics of populations under a biological lens.

>>4822276

If you disprove a hypothesis you know its false. That tells you about reality.

>>4822319
If all you do is disprove hypotheses, you never know how reality is, only how it isnt. So, no science, no knowledge. Only geusses.

>>4822329

No that is exactly what science is. Inductive reasoning in action. Exceedingly accurate guesses. We would make definitive statements about reality, but we cant unfortunately.

>>4822268

I really want to go into Biological/Physical Anthropology, did you get your bachelors in Bio or anthro, or something else? im thinking of doubling in bio/neuroscience and linguistics

>>4822295
Depends on how it's taught though for the most part it does deal with large groups. Statisitics tend to be used more by sociologists who look at larger groups than anthropologists.

In my course we are taught anatomy, zoology, evolutionary biology, osteology, genetics and too a certain extent neurobiology. I do other biology classes on the side out of interest such as my genetics class which basically taught me everything I had already learned from one of my bio anth classes.
You then apply this to the fossil record and to modern humans and see how it affects various groups e.g. how long term isolation on an island effected the indigenous people of whereever.

It's basically a specialised form of biology which would be a lot better if the subject hadn't been tacked onto social anthropology which is full of fucking retards. Case in point when they invaded the first intro class and decided that in order to gain a balanced view that creationism should be taught along side scientific fact. The proffesor promptly told them to fuck off. Since social anth is more popular though, they kinda bring the whole bio anth thing down :(

>>4822340
I was gonna get a Bsc but due to the fucktardness of my Uni and a re-organising of the whole place it got changed to a BA despite the fact I did about 3 social classes total. Cunts.

Check the course before you doing anything. If it is pure Bio Anth it's a really fun subject especially if you get to go on trips and dig shit up as well. You'll almost certainly do some social which can be good but your classmates will range from normal to fucking retarded.

TBH the subject depends on your proffesors and the curriculum. I had cool profs who would teach us about neuroscience and robotics where as my friend in a different uni spent 4 years looking at bones and analysing monkey sounds.

>>4822246

Love = Oxytocin
Happy = Dopamine
Anger = Epinephrine (aka adrenalin)
Sad = Lack of serotonin?

>>4822334
So you're saying the speed of light is an accurate guess? It's always is the same in a perfect vacuum so physical science can make more than just educated guesses about what this does in other environments.

Sorry, but I disagree, science is not just disproving hypotheses. If your field never produced any testable, reliable prediction, you never really know anything at all. Are chemical elements estimations, educated guesses or real elements of reality?

>>4822246
You're brain's biochemistry is not that simple.

it is.
its just one of the pussy ones.
aka shit tier

I would never study psychology, but I think it is funny how people say psych and biology are, "soft easy sciences", when it is the opposite.

Working on paper with known variables is simple compared to the complexity of an organism interacting with its environment. I don't see how people can think studying this is a waste of time, stupid, etc.

If you think basic chemistry and physics are complex, how could you not see how biology is more complex by many orders of magnitude? It is basically biochem with an insane amount of variation and unknowns.

That is what makes it fun. It requires excellent observation skills, sound scientific method, interpretation, creativity, etc.

>>4822355
If adrenalin makes you mad then why are people so happy when they get on roller coasters?

>>4822463
If radiation makes you die from cancer why are people most healthy with background levels higher than average?

>>4822485

>Anger = Epinephrine (aka adrenalin)
No. Epinephrine just makes you more aroused in general (not sexually though). While that can manifest in rage, it can also manifest in fright. And again, it has different effects depending on where it is.

>Sad = Lack of serotonin?
No. In fact, serotonin likely has little to do with depression. It's now hypothesized that the only reason why SSRIs work in treating depression is because chronic admistration ends up fucking with the serotonin levels in the brain so much that eventually other systems are affected and it's the changes in those other systems that actually result in less severe depression. As evidence, take the fact that SSRIs take upwards of 2 weeks to have an effect. Meanwhile AMPA antagonists like ketamine have instant, prolonged, and extremely large effects in treating depression.

>>4822246
>>4822355
This is what pop science leads you to believe. In reality it's not nearly that simple. Neurotransmitters are just "keys" that "unlock" receptors on other neurons, and it's the properties of those receptors and the connections of the neurons that are really what matter with behavior.

For example:

>Love = Oxytocin
No. In prairie voles oxytocin is sufficient for pair bonding in the female. The male, however, requires vasopressin. It's also worth noting that outside of the brain oxytocin is responsible for the milk ejaculation reflex when a woman's breasts are stimulated, as well as also responsible for uterine contractions during birth. Vasopressin is also called antidireutic hormone since one of its other functions is stimulating the collecting ducts in the nephrons of the kidneys to reabsorb water from urine, and is thus released into the bloodstream when a person becomes dehydrated or has low blood pressure.

>Happy = Dopamine
No. Dopamine is involved in the sensation of pleasure which is not the same thing as happiness. However, this is only true for dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. Elsewhere in the brain dopamine has other effects. For example, in the basal ganglia it regulates motor control. When it's absent/at low concentrations you get parkinson's disease. It's been hypothesized that the reason for stereotypic behavior in drug addicts is due in part to overstimulation of certain parts of the basal ganglia by drugs that mimic dopamine (eg: amphetamine, methamphetamine). Still in other places in the brain you get other effects. For example, in the prefrontal cortex enhanced dopamine release is a hallmark of schizophrenia.

>tell me why psychology is bullshit.

/thread

>make up an illness
>make up symptoms for the made up illness
>get made up illness and made up symptoms into the DSM
>diagnose people using criteria you just made up

>>4822363

>So you're saying the speed of light is an accurate guess?

You should differentiate between the guess and the actual subject.

To my understanding, Einstein made up some math. He totally winged it and made up a bunch of stuff. I presume this has been done an infinite number of times by physicists, a bunch of unverified ideas that they wondered if were true. Einstein's idea turned out to match reality to an incredible amount of accuracy.

> If your field never produced any testable

Part of being testable is having a hypothesis to test.

>Are chemical elements estimations, educated guesses or real elements of reality?

There is something real, which we call chemicals. We try and understand what chemicals are by coming up with descriptions of them, and seeing if those descriptions are accurate. We find them accurate to a finite number of observations. As to if they are universally and absolutely true can never be proven.

>>4822495
this is the exact reason the whole field is flaud. Look at this staement, i mean omgawd.

>>4822170
is having evidence of psychics psychology?

ITT: people who have never studied psychology
ITT: people who think para-psychology is taken seriously in psychology
ITT: People who have never heard of behavioral neuroscience

>>4822641
> it people who didnt even read the thread...

>>4822588
please kill yourself before you reproduce.

If alchemy was the underdeveloped form of Chemistry, then Psychology is the underdeveloped form of the science of the mind.

The field is not yet rigorous enough - there is no way to actually prove the claims they make, yet.

>>4822652
but i must protect my siblings offsprings chances of reproducing by killing you first; kinda weird how science thst it.

>>4822656
Even if you are a troll, you have written one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

Kill yourself.

>>4822652
i think he did.

>>4822671
even if he is a troll, he is probably right. Kill yourself.

>>4822671
haha i can type better things with by feet while shitting over mourning breakfast. lol

>>4822444

Undergraduate biology courses generally consist of: remember all these facts, then write it on the exam paper to show you have remembered them. Whereas Chemistry and Physics consist more of: understand this stuff, then use that knowledge to solve these problems.

Perhaps it is due to the complexity you mentioned making any kind of problem solving too impractical at that level, but the field simply is not taught well and favours having a good memory over all else.

>>4822693

It would be kind of like teaching mathematics by rote: rather than learning how to multiply any combination of numbers, one is taught the specific answer to specific equations and told to memorise these.

This is actually how multiplication is taught at a low level, classes chanting "2 times 1 is two, 2 times 2 is four...", but we obviously get beyond that level pretty quickly.

>>4822693
Yeah, I can definitely see that. I am in my first year of my PhD., my thesis involving biochemistry (secondary metabolites), microbiology, and ecology.

I love biology because learning about organisms and their respective interactions with each other and their environment just makes me think, "WOW". That is why I am interested in it - not to feel intelligent or compare myself to others, but to chase that feeling of awe in the complexity of life.

I think the real question isn't whether it's good science or not, but whether it's actually useful.

Does psychology help people? More so than it harms? Do people with legitimate mental illnesses benefit from psychological care?

>>4822746
I definitely think some people benefit from psychiatric care, but the very nature of mental illness makes treatment very difficult. It isn't like killing or cutting out an infection, it is much more complex and difficult to treat.

However, I think that the focus from family/community-oriented communication/therapy to talk-to-a-stranger-and-take-pills is not a good direction. But that speaks more about the changing social life in N. America than the field of psychiatry/psychology.

Haha thinks chemicals are real... Rather than just a bulk descriptiIon of partical mechanics, chemistry is bulk physics and mechanics, biology is taught as bulk chem, but is really. Nano mechanics.

Physics and maths holds the root of all understanding

Pyschology atm is basically untestable and unverifiable, i gues you have to start somewhere, but now its just its at about the alchemy stage or not even that

Ultimately the whole human will be able to be simulated close to real tine do a plot of moores law v atoms in body and time segments needed, we are just strating with folding at home

>>4822728

I am a Chemist, but to be honest, Biology interests me more. I cannot do biology though, as simply the only way I can remember large amounts of anything is through spaced repetition.

While that is very good for languages, it is not good for science. I can have a card that says "笑う" on one side, and "to laugh/smile" on the other; this will take less than a second to review.

The biology equivalent would be, something like: "biological classification" with "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species". This takes significantly longer to review and is of the more simplistic things needed to be known. I tried making an SRS deck a few years ago for use in a scientific field, and it was taking several hours every single day to update and review - completely impractical, which just caused me to burn out.

I am fairly good at figuring things out though - I go into chemistry exams not knowing a huge amount, but can get decent grades through my ability to work it out. Many find Organic Chemistry extremely difficult because they think you have to remember thousands of reactions - it's more like a puzzle where if you know a relatively small number of rules, you can solve it.

Too many variables to make it substantial as opposed to abstract and subjective.

I even like Psychology, but that's how it is. If I do end up going into it, I'd try to wedge some neurology in there as well.

>>4822756
>>4822746

As someone who has had long term mental afflictions and years of medication and therapy, I would say, as cliché as it sounds, change comes from within. Doctors seem to so often have so little effect because they do not understand what they are trying to treat and thus how to solve it.

The brain is a powerful organ which undergoes physical change in response to pure psychological phenomenon - people who imagine playing piano accurately can undergo the same changes in brain structure as someone who plays a physical piano. Drugs and therapy can help mold the brain, but if the individual is working against it, they will have no effect; they are a catalyst, not a solution.

The doctor who finally helped me did so by giving me things to read about how the brain works and responds to things. External stimuli and concious response are of secondary importance to what the brain is actually doing.

>>4822802
I worked at a habitat facility setup for people with mental and/or physical illnesses.

I can say, without a doubt, those who were, "doing better" (regartdless of their diagnosis) were those with tight family and friend relationships. The correlation was startling.

In our society, if you have a mental illness you keep it to yourself and talk to a stranger about it and take pills.

>>4822810

Isn't the implication that in order to reduce mental illness on a large scale we would need to move back towards family and community based lifestyles.

Which means we need way less people for everyone to fit.

What about psychiatry? Is that science?

Phycology is a practical science not a pure science

>>4822849

Psychiatry is like medical psychology. So, no its not a science.

>>4822864
its not science, but its founded deeply on science? what?

>>4822660
Psychology is to neuroscience what alchemy is to chemistry.

>>4822890

Yeah. Is engineering science? No. But its based on a reality which we have a scientific understanding of.

One of the important destinations between a psychiatrist and a psychologist is that a psychiatrist can prescribe drugs. They are medical doctors who are helping people.

>>4822895
engineering is both a science and an art. its cute, right?

>>4822896

Nigga wat.

>>4822890
Dr. Ronald L. Levant the president of the APA said in 2005
>"Some APA members have asked me why I have chosen to sponsor an APA Presidential Initiative on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Psychology, expressing fears that the results might be used against psychologists by managed-care companies and malpractice lawyers."

Meaning that as of now psychiatry is not based on evidence. Do I need to explain why it isn't scientific?

>>4822906
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/pc.aspx

My sources. Oh and the statement is about psychology and psychiatry. The whole field is a joke.

>>4822901
There actually is scientific research in engineering fields (a good majority of it boring, mind you, mostly filling in tables for different conditions for better estimates for whatever you're using). Engineering is mostly the practical application of knowledge we have, especially scientific knowledge, but it's not like all engineers ever do is build car engines and bridges

mostly because it does not employ complete and rigor (enough) scientific methods. it has to do with not the subject but how it has developed over the years.

not quantifiable.

>biology
>a science

>http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html

I read that, and I even agree with him for God's sake, but the man is an unrepentant asshole and is obsessed with fact and deriding the people who send him replies.
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth_feedback.html
Fuck, a kid agrees with him and asks for advice, and the man practically froths at the mouth over a few words the kid says in his letter.

I want to disagree with him after reading those. I hate this man. I hate people like him who cannot fucking fathom other human beings and their ideas. The man masturbates over the scientific method and it's alleged flawlessness, claiming science is free of the influence of reputation and politics, which is all bullshit he is spewing relentlessly.

I'm sorry, but that shit just pissed me right the fuck off.

>>4823038
For example.
>"If you want your existence to make a difference to the world, you will start by learning this single most important fact about science, and why science differs from superstition: Science must compare its ideas to reality."
Fucking what? I mean, sure, he's wrong. But what the fuck does the existential kick to the nuts have to do with fucking anything? It's just insult flinging and scientific posturing. "I'm better than you because I am a scientist."

>>4823038
>I hate people that cannot fathom other human being's ideas

oh man

this is like, well not that much, but still pretty ironic

>>4823053
You're kind of doing what he's accusing Paul Lutus of doing; taking a minor segment of the overall post and tearing it apart.

That said, it is pretty ironic.

>>4823053
And then the fucker writes an article on narcissism.
I have not been this legitimately pissed in a long time.
It is a good pain.

>>4823054
not really, I'm not saying im completely disagreeing with him, just noticed that it and thought i'd point it out.

>>4823055
http://www.arachnoid.com/opinion/social_narcissism.html
"The question of God's existence would be easy to dispense with if people could evaluate religious issues without emotion. Absent emotion, the answer is obvious — the Holocaust proves there's no God of the sort most religious believers imagine. Consider the mental state of someone optimistically praying to God for a raise next week — to the same God who allowed six million people to be loaded into cattle cars, starved, and killed."

That is not based on science, that is based on belief, which is something the swine that wrote this article spoke out against in the letters that have sent me into a fit.

FUCK YOU PAUL

>>4823053
Good catch, dammit.

>>4823060
>That is not based on science, that is based on belief
Which is why it's in the opinion segment not the science one. Learn to read faggot.

>>4822840
No, just forced collectives where social moral adapts to it. But then again, Psycologi is at the same level as Bloodletting as a Science.