/sci/ - Science & Math

its not, but /sci/ is not the place to discuss it

>>5178345
why? i mean it is a type of science in a way.

give me some opinions, u guise

All of its scientific parts are already in the Biology curriculum. Whether or not it's an interesting field doesn't dodge the fact that the field is inherently non-falsifiable.

Psychology is a science. It belongs here. People who don't believe it is a science are just morons who think they know everything about psychology from reading a few pop-psych books. Good psychology experiments have some of the most rigorous and solid design of any science, because psychologists have to juggle tons of complicating factors, and they need to be particularly careful about writing up an experiment.

Bad psychology, which admittedly you do hear a lot of, is nevertheless no worse than bad physics or bad chemistry.

>>5178383
This is just my opinion:

No matter how scientific it can be, it still is a difficult area of science to analyze. I don't see it like the other branches of science where it is easier to analyze or understand. When I took psychology, I felt like most things are still open ended questions considering humans behave irrationally and understanding the nervous system is still a difficult thing to do

>>5178391

>All of its scientific parts are already in the Biology curriculum.

Look up the scientific method anywhere. Then explain why non-biological psychology does not fit within the rules of the scientific method.

>>5178402

>humans behave irrationally

...In the modern area. We behave quite rationally, actually, considering our evolutionary past.

I'm not even studying psychology and I give it more credit than you guys.

>>5178407
>we behave quite rationally
>religion
>women logic
>drugs like weed, meth, coke, etc
>alcohol, getting drunk

>>5178407

My explanation is in the same sentence...

>>5178416

>religion

Still working on this one, but we're making big leaps. Part of it is related to the fact that our brains more than any others are constantly working to make connections and associations between objects and concepts. We see patterns more easily than other creatures, and we are actually especially prone to seeing patterns when we feel less dominant or unable to control our environment. All of this seemingly pointless pattern-spotting and assigning significance to insignificant things has to do with our ability to be inventive and adaptable in our environments. We spot tracks made by animals, see how materials could be combined to make better tools, and consciously recognize that crops grow in cycles according to seasons, and the patterns of those seasons are things that we also recognize. So religion is at least in part a side effect of how we came up in the world.

>>5178416

>women logic

You're going to need to clarify.

>drugs like weed, meth, coke, etc
>alcohol, getting drunk

The hypothalamus, which helps to regulate behaviors like sex, fighting, fleeing, feeding, drinking, sleeping, etc, is also in charge of making sure that we get rewarded for participating in those behaviors (by signaling to dump dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens, our reward center). Obviously in order for this system to work, we need to have a mechanism in place that causes us to compulsively seek rewarding behavior, thus ensuring that we will take measures toward preserving ourselves. So we are rewarded for continuing our survival, and thus of course we must ensure that we become addicted to those activities, and so the system is in place to make sure we keep wanting to get rewarded (wanting to survive). It is perfectly rational, therefore, to become addicted to drugs, because taking drugs is a rewarding behavior.

Rational behavior is evolutionarily-motivated behavior. Which is pretty much all behavior, by extension. Anything that happens based on the wiring of our brains is rational behavior.

I'm studying physics at the moment. Personally the reason I hate it is because there's not so much a real world applitation, it's all about objective and subjective truths, that kind of thing. I preffer things to be applicable to the real world around us, rather than fabricating theories of no use to society, which can't be disproven.

>>5178471

>All of its scientific parts are already in the Biology curriculum.

No. I think you're imagining that somewhere beyond bio 101 you are taught all of psychology, but you should probably take something above high school bio/psyche if you want to argue this.

>>5178481
>Personally the reason I hate it is because there's not so much a real world applitation
>not so much a real world applitation

Ever heard of marketing?

because it's all unscientific bullshit
http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pcd%20pubs/simmonsetal11.pdf

>>5178506

Woah there. I'm not that guy but a lot of marketing is just pop-psych.

Real psychology applications are basically all of psychiatry, but also things like corporate/industrial structure and office design, education planning, non-clinical counseling, and other, smaller fields. Psychology is actually pretty deep, and a lot of the fields have a really "no bullshit" attitude. Social psychology is the only field where we actually see problems, and fraud there is found out pretty quickly.

>>5178510

Uri Simonsohn use psychological and statistical techniques (and all psychology is stats) to expose those people. You couldn't actually find that stuff without being well educated in psychology.

>I've discovered a new syndrome affecting young adults which I'll name "Channer Syndrome"
>Symptoms include: being a virgin over 18, spending large time on a computer, and being secretive from their parents
...
soon
...
>Growing number of young adult are diagnosed with Channer Syndrome
>"Are vaccines and fatty foods the cause?"
>"Possible link with asperger syndrome found?"
>Donate now for research into a cure for Channer Syndrome! Wire your money directly into my bank account!

>>5178526
What's wrong with marketing? Sure a lot of it is pop-psych, but not the stuff that works. And a lot of it does work, I don't think anyone in the world can disagree with that.

Now I agree on everything else you said, except psychiatry. No therapeutical method has yet shown better results than, for example, going to fucking church.

>>5178567
MUH VACCINES
MUH POLIO
MUH AUTISM

>>5178583

Psychology is very subjetive, non-quantifiable and cannot be disproven because every person has a different interpretation to it.

Biology is much more scientific, btw.

>>5178481
op here.

im gonna go for engineering physics this spring. do you know how the Phd is in general for engineers? is it identical with physics Phd? i am clueless, please enlighten me

>>5178618

>>5178692
>implying that all fields of chemistry are mathematically rigorous
>implying that all fields of biology are not mathematically rigorous

smells freshman in here

>>5178700

>>5178692
Biology will be useful in computers and brain machine interfaces (BMIs) which will make us smarter beyond the highest levels of math. Thats why I was smart and decided to study neuroscience.

>>5178714
e.g.
organic chemistry - little math
population modeling - all math

I WANT THE /b/ KIDS TO UNDERSTAND MAJORS DONT MATTER
ITS WHO YOU KNOW

I think it's a great field, and people hate on it because they go into the mindset of Freud and bad social psychology. Psychology today is very different, but I don't think people here even bother to investigate it.

To be fair, I don't think I would've been different, if my wife didn't take me along to a couple of psych lectures. A couple of cognitive psychology lectures were remarkable.

>>5178737
Why is this so accurate?

>>5178804
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Reinforcement_learning
Because it isn't.

There is nothing wrong with Psychology. It is a legitimate science that uses the scientific method and does a lot more field work than a lot of other sciences. It encompasses a basic, necessary subject and it imperative to scientific progression in the modern world.

There's nothing wrong with studying psychology. It's a highly interesting field that spans many disciplines. Knowing psychology will contribute to your academic and intellectual advancement and will teach you a lot.

There isn't even anything wrong with a degree in psychology. Due to the holistic nature of psychology, you'll learn a lot from many fields and gain a well rounded background. It will help you succeed as a person and as an employee.

What IS wrong, however, is thinking that your psychology degree will get you a job in psychology. I don't know the actual statistics, but I'm guessing less than 5% of psychology majors enter the field as a psychologist. There are just too many of them, and not enough jobs. With a psychology degree you will most likely enter the plebian wage slave workforce and do nothing with your degree other than say "hey, I have an increasingly worthless degree, but at least I can prove I have the motivation to go to college." You will have to garner your own benefits from the degree, because you won't in the workforce. This is the same problem business majors have. You're not SUPPOSED to use your education to get hired. You're supposed to use it for other means. If you want to make the most of your degree, use the skills you learned to start a business or be an entrepreneur or do something unique.

>>5178831
I'm minoring in psychology, and I'd be lying if I told you that most people in psychology hate math. Even the most basic research math, and simple formulas are the bane of my classmates.

>>5178329
>the mind is very complex and i admire the ones trying to understand how it works.
Implying Psychology is Neurology (its not)

>>5178831
tl;dr

Because it screwed me over pretty good.

>>5178476
>You're going to need to clarify.

Just look at society, television, facebook and all the things women obsess over like celebrity gossip, clothes, makeup, attention-whoring etc. It's retarded. Obviously a girl should look nice but sometimes they just go over board. Men obsess over bullshit too but women seem to just take it further beyond. Just look at women facebook statuses and you'll see all the irrational garbage that plagues their minds.

>>5178476
So self-destructing behavior is rational because it is rewarding?

>>5178958

Why would it be irrational for a woman to obsess over appearance and gaining the attention of her peers? Women evolved that way because it is advantageous for them to attract a competitive male (and thus they need to attract many males in order to have their choice), and then to hang on to him as long as possible in order to ensure the survival of themselves and their children.

>>5178961

It is rational to pursue the activation of our reward pathways because that is the mechanism that allows us to survive. Drugs are just a way that we have found to "hack" the system and give us rewards for doing other things. It's still perfectly rational: it fits within our evolutionary psychology.

Another fun fact: we get so much pleasure from eating sweet and fatty things because we evolved in difficult environments and in hunter-gatherer societies, and so storing a lot of sugar and fat was vital for survival. Now, while these foods are plentiful, we still have strong urges to stock up on fats and sweets, even if we are becoming obese, because that is how we managed to survive all this time.

All of this behavior is ridiculous if looked at from what we believe is an objective viewpoint, but it makes sense in the real world. Evolution does not happen in a few hundred years. These mechanisms that cause us to act "irrationally" are actually what has preserved our species from the very beginning. We seem irrational because we change our own environment extremely quickly, but nothing that is rooted in evolution is "irrational." It is the perfectly rational and reasonable way of the world.

Ironically, we know all of this because of the field known as evolutionary psychology.

I don't consider psychology a pseudo-science at all, but rather just an underdeveloped science. Psychology hasn't been around as long as physics or chemistry have, and it can do with a few more breakthroughs before it can be on the same caliber as other sciences.

>>5179022
I have a love-hate relationship with psychology. On one hand, I think abnormal psych is incredibly interesting, and I do believe it is important to study how people tick.

On the other hand, it is a soft science full of meaningless psychobabble and jargon (as opposed to good, useful jargon in other sciences).

Maybe I'm biased as someone getting a neuro PhD, but psych is destined to be absorbed and replaced by neuroscience. While neuro can be quite soft as well, it is still a step above psych.

>>5178875
Not surprising. Psycholgy (particularly undergrad psych) is a magnet for people who don't know what they want to do/aren't that bright.

Also, frankly, women who are just "going to college" just because.

>>5178875

>I'd be lying if I told you that most people in psychology hate math.
>simple formulas are the bane of my classmates.

It seems your grip on English is a little weak, though. We've all got our weaknesses.

/sci/ is a bias place filled with zealots and infatuated persons mostly dealing with either physics or computer science. So anything 'other' will have a deviation towards the tier of shittiness; and anything having more resemblance will a deviation nearer to those professed 'favored' sciences.

A lot of the hatred stems from ignorance and bigotry. Most people in /sci/ are exposed daily to psychology like everybody else—we are bombarded with a verily romanced interpretation of it. You're more likely to find either a book or a movie that's considered as a 'psychological' thriller than your are say a physics thriller or computer science drama. Granted there is 'hard' science-fiction, but that doesn't seem to have nearly the same publicity as those dramatic works that usually fall in some 'psychological' categorization. We have more top selling movies and books where at least one of the main characters is a psychologist, or emits using psychology professionally, than we do movies or books having either a physicist or a computer scientist. Recall: Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, The Manchurian Candidate, Vertigo, The Graduate, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest etc. etc. Now try to recall a popular movie where at least on the characters, not even a main character was from the fields of those favored sciences. There's 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix (perhaps). It seems harder to make a list with this criteria.

The point being, we are given more exposure to psychology in some entertaining fashion than we are physics or computer science. But the problem is that it's mostly a romantic showing, totally skewing how psychology is actually a real and hard science. This kind of a atmosphere makes for a prejudicial perceptions.

Cont'd

>>5179241
wow, a psych person claiming science is somehow PREJUDICED against psych. pfffft.

I'm >>5179035, I think psych can be quite interesting, but you are deluding yourself if you think psych is a hard science. Psychology is NOT a hard science. I have read plenty of psych papers and I am personally shocked at how much of their stuff is self-reported/volunteer based. The sampling bias is absurd. Obviously, this is simply a constraint of not being able to fuckin kidnap people for experiments, but this doesn't change the fact that psych is one of the softest sciences around.

>>5179241

But what about the more educated ones? What about those who have a little bit more familiarity with psychology than the rest, those who either took a class or at least read 'in the discipline'. Why does it seem that they too also denounce psychology.

This where the bigotry and ignorance starts to really work well together. Most of these persons usually take introductory psychology as a prerequisite. So they're only exposed to the gist. They're completely unaware that after any intermediate courses in psychology you will need math prerequisites, chemistry prerequisites and lot's of other sciences depending on your direction. Psychology in academia doesn't have steep learning curve—it has an abrupt cliff (just like physics or computer science).

So, they're only really speaking about a psychology from an exposure that is presented in a layman fashion, like any other introduction to a science. Without further study they are given into making misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims of their own. And by the time they start looking at the more rigorous parts of psychology it goes completely over their head. But because they think they are well situated in reading the more difficult texts in their own fields they also think they're well situated in comprehending the more difficult texts in psychology as well.

cont'd

>>5179354

This leads to some of the most staunch haters. The problem here being they are under a distortion of the perception that the sciences' are respected as a collective that must entail there must be some universal handling with in it. "If I know theses mathematical concepts, then I'm ready to know those physics concepts or those computer concepts etc.etc." There is this idea that base information is transferable. To a degree they're right, just look at the prerequisite example earlier. What they get wrong is not knowing what base concepts are transferable and more importantly how they are transferable.

You can see this in arguments that denounce psychology because it doesn't present a 'true' scientific method. Which is completely false. It's an argument you can counter by stating factually: science does not have a solid-universal-model of what the scientific method is. We have an abbreviated conception of it, but once we start going into certain discipline it begins to fracture into variations.

That's why /sci/ shits on psychology. It disturbs them too much to consider it a science, it takes them out of their comfort zone. It makes them fell inadequate.

>>5179356
If you have to make excuses about why your discipline is not taken seriously and shout "BIGOTRY!" - you have already lost.

If your discipline cannot stand on its own, if you have to make excuses like "bigotry and ignorance conspire against us," you fail.

Sure, scientists are a catty bunch of prima donnas, but that doesn't change the fact that Psych is one of the softest sciences there are. Note - it is still a science, just a softer one. That is the nature of it.

Don't be so goddamn butthurt.

>>5179291

>implying neuroscience isn't without it's problems of biases and poor reporting. And the difficulty it has presenting itself as a hard science.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...

>>5179367
>if you have to correct ignorant retards, you're wrong and i'm right.

ok

>>5178840
>I'm guessing less than 5% of psychology majors enter the field as a psychologist.
well, this probably has to do with the fact that "psychologist" isn't really a job any more. more likely than not you end up as a counselor/criminal profiler/human resources manager/social worker/ ect. just because the job isn't literally "lol Psychologist," doesn't mean you're not putting your psychology degree to good use.

That being said, and BS in Psychology is basically worthless if you're not intending on entering a graduate program.

>>5179367

Calling out bigotry begets failure? That's your rebuttal? Are you sure you're not being maybe just a little butthurt? Is being called out by a blanketed statement just too much for you to handle?

If all scientist are prima-donnas what makes you think any science is distinguishable from being either hard or soft. If the nature of it is soft, what makes so soft?

Just curious, these soft sciences claim to use statistics like everyone else, so what methods do they use? because as far as I know, none of those majors have to take a proper probability + statistics course. I know econ can get pretty rigorous, but not sure about the others like sociology/psychology.

If I am completely wrong please tell me some examples where you would use continuous or discrete density functions to model your experiments or something like that.

>>5179022
>I don't consider psychology a pseudo-science at all, but rather just an underdeveloped science.
this

psychology today is like Mendel growing pea plants, or Galileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa.

>>5179402
>you don't have to take stats for psych

what shitty college do you go to? Its required in mine. Its required with every social science.

>>5179402
>none of those majors have to take a proper probability + statistics course.
Psychology students at my University were required to take a minimum of 16 course hours of statistics, and at least one of those classes had to be experimental stats.

>>5179402
your school must have been shit or else you don't know what you're talking about. Even ignoring the fact that you need a fundamental knowledge of statistics in order to formulate and administer tests and surveys integral to the Psychological scientific method, how can you be expected to understand and evaluate contemporary publications without understanding statistics.

>>5179422

Well I'm looking at my school's requirements for a B.sc in psychology. It says you only need calc 1 and a choice of calc 2, linear algebra. The only dedicated stats course that you have to take is called... " Experimental Design and Quantitative Methods for Psychology" which has no calculus pre-req,

When I said proper, I mean with calculus obviously.....

>>5179442

Also you guys also failed to show an example of how rigorously stats/probability is used in psychology. Instead you got butt frustrated.

>>5179442

is yur schul Devry, Pheenux Online or Aye-Tee-Tee?

>>5179452

Nope it's a pretty big canadian university, please link me to a proper psychology B.SC program then.

>>5179450
read this
>>5179428
...
fag

>>5179457

jesus christ, just show me an example of how you would use probability/statistics to model behavior or some other bull fuck, is it that hard?

and wtf is the "Psychological scientific method", you can open up a 30 psychology books and you won't find a single integral.

>>5178329
>alot
you're stupid by that much
Also psychology is a social study, that's why it is frowned upon. Like math frowns upon statistics.
Suggestion; read How to Decide by Lehrer and approach the science /religion from that stand point, apply life from there

>>5179463
google document search literally any publication with the word "Psychology" in the heading. the burden of proof lies with the accuser, grow the fuck up and do your own homework.

>>5179463
>wtf is the "Psychological scientific method"
obviously it's the scientific method as applied to psychology... do you not know what the scientific method is?

>>5179470

>can't even show a single example of using babby tier math in his shit tier major

It doesn't even have to anything special, just some use of discrete or continuous variables

>>5179476
you're still wasting your time bickering with me when you could be looking these things up for yourself.

Psychology is shit tier because it is still in infancy and has had very few scientifically tenable results. And yes, the literature is riddled with unfalsifiability.

It tries to be a science, but thus far it is vastly unsuccessful. What do you expect fron a field started by people like Jung and Freud?

Anyone who says psychology is a more intellectually challenging field of study than physics or chemistry is a delusional narcissist and should diagnose themself immediately.

>>5179375
do ho ho.

I mention this in my previous post
>[...]While neuro can be quite soft as well, it is still a step above psych.

>>5178329
This forum has dicks. Not much to add.

>>5179476
Any respectful university or college in the states require a strong foundation in multivariate statistics. Look at graduates programs from Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Dartmouth.

Yes, you can probably go to only to the shallowest parts of the heavier mathematics for a undergraduate degree--but you'll be shooting yourself in the foot if you want to practice.

But then again, what makes you think a specific calculus becomes a litmus test as to whether or not psychology should be counted as a big-boy hard science.

Some of it is good, some of it is shit tier. It has Scientific tendencies, but there is a lot of bullshit going on. The Laypersons understanding of psychology is wrong (And by Layperson i include most of Sci) and there are a lot of people riding the psychology wave, and claiming to be psychologists when they are really just retards.

Basically - Psychology is a science with some issues. Some things we cannot fully study yet, and all we can do is speculation (until we get better technology). Parts like Mental health, Neuropsychology, Learning are fine, but then Psych is tainted by stuff like Personality theory, and Frued.

I'm not reading the thread, and im not sticking around, so flame on.

>>5179498
>Jung and Freud
Jung was suicidal,
Freud was a coke head...

Newton was an alchemist
Einstein was autistic
Francis Bacon fucking died trying to invent frozen chicken...

all fields of study have their clowns.

>>5179507

Einstein was not autistic, Dirac was. And neither of them made or had false claims validated by their peers.

Newton believed in the transfiguration of one amalgam to another. That was early chemistry. He also was born in an era where people still believed disease came from evil spirits.

At least these men made statements that could be and were tested and showed remarkable accuracy.

>>5179498
>What do you expect fron a field started by people like Jung and Freud?
When you find a scientist's hypothesis' to be wrong you do not say that that was a bad scientist, only that they were unproductive.

>>5179401
That's easy. Methods, study construction, p-value thresholds - these all contribute to the softness of the science.

Much of psychology deals with self-reporting surveys, volunteers, etc., which of course introduce large amounts of bias. Take a look at the p-values used in pysch studies. They are not small.

I shake my head at his "bigotry" comments because they are absurd. Your field should stand on its own - whining about unseen "bigotry" is absurd.

I say this as someone who enjoys aspects of psychology. I don't see why there's this backlash against psych being soft - it IS soft. While neuro (my field) is certainly better, depending on the aspect (behavioral vs. mo-bo) it can be pretty soft too. Relax.

>>5179402
They use massive p-values, for one.

>>5179418
I would hope every science requires at least one stats course.

>>5179506
>but there is a lot of bullshit going on.
most likely having to due with the fact that psychologists are limited by excluding theoretical experiments and holding themselves to a moral code baring most of the more efficient means of human experimentation.

>>5179513

Lol. Stay away from academia kid, trust me.

You'll be disillusioned reeeeal quick.

>>5178875
>> Be Psychology student
>> was shit at maths in HS
>> Stats is not a required course
>> Take it anyway, i know i'll need it
>> Love it, High DIstinction
>> Comes to Stats in Psych
>> Babbys first numer - we do Means, Correlations and a few graphs
>> In Excell
>> Too much math for classmates
>> Meanwhile I do T-tests and work out P-values to use in my assignment
>> Doing stats 2 next year
>> Considering doing other math courses

Is it bad i feel elitist?

>>5179535
big fish, small pond.

I mean....you're among psych majors in UNDERGRAD. They are not the cream of your uni, I assure you.

>>5179506
>there are a lot of people riding the psychology wave, and claiming to be psychologists when they are really just retards.
if you've ever spoken to any psychology professor worth his salary, or any grad student for that matter you would know that most of the psychology community are quite capable of weeding out and tearing down the idiots who don't know what their talking about.

>>5179543
Most of the Psychology community?
Yes
Everyone else?
No.

>>5179541
Fair enough, and i know what i can do is child-tier to others, but it does frustrate me a bit. After Taking an entire stats course, the two weeks on 'Statistics in psychology' felt so empty. At least i'm happy to help my classmates.

On a related note,

>> That one kid who asks 'When we we doing Para-psychology' in the first lecture

>>5179544
I don't understand your complaint... in every area of study those people who actually know some of the subject matter can make informed decisions while those who do not fall victims to frauds.

Because of the success of science, every field tries to legitimize itself by trying to act scientific.

Be it, homeopathy or psychology.

>>5179550
one of my best friends wants to be a Paranormal Psychologist... she was disillusioned to find that only about 3 schools in the US actually offer the degree as a graduate course...

>>5179498

Jung is cool though.

>HURR IF IT ISN'T FALSIFIABLE IT ISN'T WORTH IT

There is more to life than cold facts asshole.

>>5179550
Well, if you're unsatisfied, you can always switch to a more rigorous major if you want. Segue into neuro if your uni has that, or biology.

>>5178567
Media does shit with EVERY field

>>5179552
so, by your logic, because of the success of fast food every french chef wants to be a frycook.

>>5179563
Maybe so, but not in science.

WTF are you talking about? "Oh, who cares if it cannot be proven false/correct?"

....the fundamental purpose of scientific study?

Why are you here if you don't care about something being true?

>>5179563

There is more to life than cold hard facts.

But cold hard facts is all science cares about, or at least things that actually reflect reality.

By your reasoning religion can be a science too.

>>5179566
restless leg...

>>5179569

Clearly that is not the case.

But it is the case that snake oil salesman try to appeal to mockeries of science to validate their field.

>>5179577
>But it is the case that snake oil salesman try to appeal to mockeries of science to validate their field.

but it's not the case that everyone who claims to be a psychologist is willingly and maliciously putting on the guise of it being a perfect science.

in fact, the only time I've ever seen psychology=snake oil is with duschnozzles like Dr. Phil and any other ass hole with their face on the cover of a softback book.

>>5179570
>>5179573

You two should read Feyerabend. The book is "against the method".

(I think, I don't remember)

>>5179583
funny, plenty of people in this thread seem to be claiming psychology is as hard as physics.

lol no

>>5179604
and plenty of others are not.

>>5178958
Men obsess about the same amount of bullshit, they are just less vocal about it.

e.g. sports, video games, the latest episode of How I Met Your Mother

I'm reading a lot of guff in this about neuroscience as if its 'more real-er' than psychology. (I use the term 'more real-er' to give air of how stupid such a implication is)

A big problem with neuroscience is that it seems to be a trapped science. It does wonders in telling us about how the brain works as biological structure, but then it stops. Taking any understanding from there to ential how that equates to the working of the mind falls flat on its ass without psychology.

I think's ironic that the parts in neuroscience that are most hungered after-- i.e. wanting to know how we tick, and why--requires a 'soft' science just to be a meaningful 'hard' science. That kinda calls into question: why is psychology is frowned upon if it's so vital to neuroscience?

And what the fuck makes a science hard or soft. Shouldn't a science stand on a empirical foundation? And inb4 you say psychology has faults with empirical evidence, bite your tongue. All sciences have that problem. It's one of the reasons why every couple generations the shape of science becomes a complete revolution against the previous generations.

Fuck your hard and soft nomlectures.

>>5179617
Sorry, meant to say "slightly less vocal".

People can yammer on about HIMYM for hours.

>>5179618
lol no.

Ever heard of behavioral neuroscience for one? By its very nature, neuroscience is an umbrella field that encompasses a variety of disciplines. Example: while I work in a mo-bo lab, plenty of other labs in our building are focused on behavior, cognition, reasoning, functional imaging, etc. Neuroscience will eventually swallow up and replace psychology.

>And what the fuck makes a science hard or soft

Study design, statistics, etc. contribute to the hardness of a science.

You sound like some fucking butthurt psych grad student that's got a case of proverbial penis envy when looking at other sciences.

>>5179618
>Within the areas of natural science and social science, some disciplines are viewed as "harder" than others. For example, physics is viewed as harder than, say, psychology since the former but not the latter can make numerically precise predictions about experimental data.

The problem with psychology is that you use subjective criteria to measure often subjective aspects of diseases that may or may not exist. For instance, psychologists talk about things like "depression" even though it is not really a meaningful term - Depression is a spectrum of diseases, not one disease.

Take, for instance, neurology. An experiment and its results could be, "if we inflict stress A on neuronal population B, we observe an X% decrease in production of synaptic vesicles." This is all objective fact. The criteria used in psychology are often very subjective.

>>5179626

Either your stupidity is glorious or you're just trolling. Every statement you made thus far has been embarrassingly counterfactual--like shit-tier-ignorant.

>>5178400
word up but the question is why sci cant incorporate irrational things

>>5179633

Psychology is a hard science. Just cause you don't know much about it doesn't mean you make substantial claims about it. That's a basic baby's-first-concept with science.

>>5179641
translation:
>I am interested/involved in psych, therefore it is the bestest field ever and everyone else is shit

>>5179653

Glorious

>>5179648
>Psychology is a hard science
not even psychologists believe that.

>>5179470
actually the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. you claim it uses these things so you are the one who must show examples of that or you are just blowing hot air.

this is coming from a lurking bystander that just popped in by the by. I have no motives for this post other than policing the correct use of the burden of proof.

>>5179694

You're a retarded sheriff. The initial claim has been: psychology must use mathematical concept _______ to be considered a (quality) science.

If you wanted to police properly about 'burden of proof' maybe you should look at how faulty the conditions of proof has been given firstly, before you go blowing your waaah-whistle.

>>5179715
you are the most asspissed faggot I have ever seen. I guess it helps that you've been crushed so thoroughly in this thread.

>>5178329
Perhaps psych. is maligned by the level of discourse that questions about it, decend to, here, OP.

>>5179463
> you won't find a single integral

That makes sense. Why the fuck would you work with infinitesimal values in psychology?

There might be some uses for it, but if most of the topics being studied are discrete, you won't need to integrate anything.

>>5179463
>Thinks a lack of integrals means it's not rigorous.

>>5180086

no I mean the lack of fucking everything makes it shit tier, why does this field even exist when neuroscience does it better?

>>5180107
Yeah, I built my PC, I don't need anyone to tell me how the programs work!!!!

>>5180107
Build time machine.
Go explain to Aristotle that a science of physical properties is absurd, as Comte and Newton will invalidate all his work and quantum theory "dose it better" and will eventualy be considered to include all these special cases.

>>5179763
lol wat?
check your autism before you form an argument

>>5180150
>>using erroneous pop-psychology meaning of autism in a thread about why the field is not respected.
Genus!!!

>>5179476

'special' math?

WTF?!??!

You use the mathematics appropriate to the field of study. NOT LOL.. this chemistry can't be good...it doesn't use tensor analysis....

>>5178329
'Cause I was diagnosed with "Asperger-like tendencies", with a negative implication. Now even my family who has known me for my whole life suddenly thinks of me as "handicapped" or something and wants to cure me. Essentially I am being punished for my interests, good learning habits and critical thinking (because I come off as rude to many people when I dare to correct them when they make illogical statements).
tl:dr: psychologists see personalities as diseases and have too much power over the non-scientific masses.

>>5180174

You can't be cured of Aspergers. Your basal ganglia are non-standard. It's like being a dwarf. You'll just have to learn to live with it.

>>5178391
Good point on whether it can be proven. It can. They do use a lot of stats.

I liked intro to psyc and psyc stats. Tons of pretty girls. Kinda explains why the chem and physics depts. are a sausagefest.

Idk OP id like psyc more when they can merge neurochemistry to it to the point where psyc isn't liberal arts. Peace.

>>5180174
>my interests, good learning habits and critical thinking

Nobody is diagnosed with aspergers because of those things.

>>5180174
Psych has an answer to your psych caused problems!! Point out that by DSM-IV-TR standards, symptoms must be detrimental to functionality (not "highly-socal lifestyle," but ability to " acceptably function in socity," ie. feed and clothe yourself, not require police attention due to distress of neighbors) and personal fulfilment (read this as "happyness" to simplify) to be considered a "disorder" rather than a "trait." This is the reason that homeosexuality was droped after Diagnostic Statistical Manual mark three, or FPPD which had, "successful" and "creative" as indicators. Any phrink that dosen't understand this should have their credentials revoked, their constant abuses are worse abuses our priesthood than irresponsible drug-prescribing is to MD or child-abuse is to the christians.
The fact that such a revision was necessary or that such missuse of a licence is common is why Psychiatry is not respected as an art and how we know the science of Psychology is barely out of it's first century.

>>5180174
I got diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder... because I was situationally isolated and complained about how lonely it made me.

In the same interaction I got diagnosed with somatoform disorder NOS... for acute symptoms which were not medically investigated, while I was being held illegally and without justification in a mental institution, and denied access to medical attention despite continual complaints of pain and requests for medical attention.

Quacks gonna quack.

>>5178391
Behaviourism =/= biology
uninnumerable =/= unmeasurable

Psychology covers many aspects of individual behavour that are qualifiable but not quantifiable, hence it is a "soft science." Some sub-fields deal with populations and therefore can be talked about in the same statistical manner as gaseous kinesthetics; others deal with measurable and perdictable responces to stimuli due to a mechanism currently not understood. Attempting to relegate human thought to the science of it's underlying biology is the same as insisting that "scientific" chemistry is "already completely covered by string-theory,"-a claim I only hear in the undergraduate coffee-house.

Roughtly one quarter of cases of schizophrenia result in one psychotic episode, which is not repeated regardless of medication or the lack thereof, and no impairment after the episode is over.

Usually, there isn't a very thorough search for a physical cause, though psychotic episodes are not reliably distinguishable from delirium by observation alone. The patient and the patient's family are often told that they will have to take antipsychotic medications for the rest of their life.

Antipsychotic medications have been shown in studies to be helpful in treating schizophrenia in under half of cases. Placebos have been shown to be helpful in over a quarter. The medications have obtrusive side-effects which make them easy to distinguish from placebos, even in "blind" trials.

Psychiatric medication has been shown to create psychological abnormalities in healthy people, and dependency with episodes of severe acute mental dysfunction on withdrawal or dose schedule irregularities.

Physical indications of schizophrenia which psychiatrists have been pointing to as evidence that it is a real disease, such as losses of brain mass, have been indicated by recent research to be effects of psychiatric medication.

>>5180174
>>5180302
>>5180308
It sounds like a good answer to OP would be we hate on psychology as we have shat on my unscientific unscrupulous unprincipled abuse by people claiming "scientific" credentials and this board is titled "Science & Math."
Math, something you are currently considered "psychologically abnormal" for using or understanding.

>>5180392
source please
this is useful information for me if i have a real citation

>>5180404
I don't have sources handy. You'll have to search around.

Just watch out for kook sites. It's easy while searching for antipsychiatry information to stumble into a disguised Scientology page, or a site that seems reasonable at first, but then goes off on a tangent about how psychotic episodes are a glimpse of the true reality.

Most of the people who get seriously worked up about psychiatry have been personally offended, and have been put in a position for that by not being too sane to begin with. You have to sift through them, and the casual hit-and-run criticisms of obvious foundational flaws in mushy-soft quasiscience, to get to the serious work done by disenchanted psychologists and psychiatrists criticizing their own field.

>>5180184
>>Nobody is diagnosed with aspergers because of those things.
In theory this is debatable; in practice abnormal (subjectively judged) interests, studying and recourse to logic are frequently used as the diagnostic criteria, along with the rudeness and "not understanding" why people behave illogicaly, that the Anon mentioned.
I want to live in the world that you think you are in, and have since a MD told me, in earnest, that believing that advertisers deliberately misslead and attempt to instill spurious associations, is a "sure sign" of clinical paranoia.

>>5180392
"Iatrogenic psychological disorders"

>>5178407

>Look up the scientific method anywhere. Then explain why non-biological psychology does not fit within the rules of the scientific method.

because the cognitive and psychological approaches are non falsifiable as some other anon said.
I do psychology and some of the studies are total shit, they can outright fail to isolate the thing they intend to test and though it isn't really psychologys fault or those who practice it, it is full of bullshit popscience that praises sigmund freud as some sort of wizard.

basically, just enjoy what you enjoy, it is useful but in any behavioral science there are bound to be flaws because we aren't all the same, so /sci/ isn't really the place to discuss the merits of it.

>>5180464

>that praises sigmund freud as some sort of wizard

I have no idea what school you're going to, but it's clearly shit. Freud is recognised as a father of a field, but everything he says is taken with a shovel of salt. It's unusual for contemporary psychologists to say otherwise.

I don't think you've been completely honest with us.

>>5180473
I am being honest, the biological approach is given around an hour, then the pychodynamic approach is given two to three hours of lesson time in explaining the same thing. They don't even ask us to understand how a neurotransmitter works, this isn't every school but that is a complete joke.

the way i see it
psyc = arts
neuro = science

>>5180464
So because one reoccuring fruitless branch of a subject is based on currently unquantifiable speculated structure, the mechanism underlying the observed and measureable phenomina is unknown, perhapse unknowable and the field contains some number of charlatans and the self-deluded the scientific method can not be applyed to the entire field? That dosen't follow; what science could you not say the same of at some point in it's history?
You could just as easly say that biology is flawed, as it too attempts generalised theorys of a diverse population.
Where do you propose behavioural science be discused if not Science & Math? /adv/, /h/, /x/ or /mlp/?

>>5180464
>>5180473
I remeber Freud being mentioned in the history of the science, but otherwise never mentioned in academic setting. Honestly, I know more about Freudian model from pop-culture and passing refutations of his theories whenever currently well reguarded psychologists have to deal with "well-informed" laymen. Jungian models get more coverage.
>>5180477
I don't remember ever seeing a cirriculum that treated reflex networks and mental process as two alternate explanations of the same observed phenomina.
>>5180509
Ok, why?

>>5180160

You really are autistic aren't you? Or are you an autistic 8 year old who can't comprehend the concept of validity? You sound desprate.

I think it's hilarious people trying to talk about psychology as if they already get it--it get even more funnier they psych is unquantifiable or is unfalsifiable. That clearly shows you haven't read well enough into the fields of Psychology.

>>5180604
I am eight actualy, please explain your comment to me and how it is relevent to discussion. Please use small words.

>>5178510

I will kill you... And bury your body in the woods.

>>5180730

Why? What would be the point? What relevancy are you worried about, if you're already asking questions derailing the discussion?

>>5180760
Mr. asspissed here has been my favorite throughout the thread.

>>5178510

if you read that report, it expresses how some people research erroneously in the hard field of psychology. You should read past the title next time you want try and submit evidence to your bullshit claim.

Most people on /sci/ should take an interest in psychology. After all, most of this board has mental illnesses of some kind.

riddles post all off them

>>5180800
Just THIS board?
>>5180760
Well, as a /b/tard troll..who incidentally spent some time sitting in the proverbial "room full of autists" back before the word became a popular, and I feel, with my personal and undergraduate only understanding of developmental psychology, misused slur, I felt that two people calling each other autist in this thread was pure self-demonstration of the level of knowledge and respect psychology gets on /sci/. It sounded as if mr. buthurt was questioning my understanding of the true validity of the aforementioned use of the word autistic, but it was so hard to understand, I needed clarification. I thought I was being on topic, but apparently my lack of credentals have caused me to err.
>>5180797
Your asking a troll (not me) to submit relevant evidence? Isn't the fact that they footnoted at all, goodenough, you also expect the footnote to support their claim?

>>5178407
I don't completely get in the modern era?

we behaved rationally at the time, we always did.. just like animals, fight or flight, eat when hungry, sleep or scavange... it was all based on logic. Today is perhaps less of such a time where there are many confusing things going on, and more tempting things.

>>5180948
Anon is saying our behavour, now, is explained by our evolutionary develpement. Anon is refuteing previous-anon who claims that we behave irrationaly.

>>5180931

>I needed clarification. I thought I was being on topic, but apparently my lack of credentals have caused me to err.

This is an example of someone unaware of their own retardation and bloated egocentrism. Thank you for that lovely demonstration and complete lack of critical reading.

Glorious autism triumphs over discourse. I feel so told.

>>5178506
>Implying that marketing is the real world application that justifies psychology.
>Implying that marketing is beneficial to society
>Implying that we should gather knowledge about the human mind because capitalism doesn't exploit people enough already.
Jesus fucking christ, what you just typed is the equivalent of saying that physics is justified by it's real world applications in the making of bombs and machine guns.

>>5181190
You fucking asshat, are you saying translational applications are unimportant?

Well I got news for you - you aren't going to get fucking funded if your work doesn't have translational applications. Guess how many NIH grant apps are being funded now - 4%. FOUR PERCENT. Not too long ago, it was 33% - quite a drop.

You clearly are not involved in science in any way, otherwise you would realize the inherent value in having practical applications for you work, no matter how basic your initial goals are. Go back to your PopSci and reddit.

>>5181083
>>..unaware..their own retardation and bloated egocentrism...
I am the person to liken myself to a child, and did you realy feel the need to call an avitarfag an egomaniac, was that not obvious?
I'm sorry that I am the one who cannot read criticaly, recognise sarcam and that I was bringing down the level of discourse by pointing out the irony of someone, here, in this discusion, combining psychological diagnostic terminology and the word faggot in one utterance.
I am sory my "autism" made you feel "told."
I don't want anyone to feel "told," trust me, it feels worse when the grey comes; I'll stop ruining this debate about the seriousness of a science, by bringing my sophmoric attempt at understanding and discussing privious statements, go back to talking about ur dik.
>>5181190
Physics is justified by the bombs it makes: if money is how an organised socity recognises value, rewards and promotes it within itself; how we spend money is what we value and the research we think is worthwhile.

>>5178329
I'm diagnosing 4chan with severe avoidant personality disorder

>>5183210
holy thread resurrection batman

>>5178416

Respect until >women logic

>>5178991
fits within evolutionary psychology =/= rational

People die from meth and shit. After seeing the effects of it on other people, or experiencing the effects of it, some are still wilfully ignorant about how it will affect them negatively. It is NOT rational to become and stay addicted to meth.

Many thinks humans do are not rational, partially because of our emotions and feelings, partially because of society's pressures and expectations that could be silly or taken too far (which I would say causes what people in /sci/ are calling 'women logic'), partially because humans do not always give enough consideration to their actions and the consequences of them.

Human beings are NOT RATIONAL and to say everything's rational with some bullshit layman's evolutionary theorising is a stupid argument.

>>5179535
>Is it bad i feel elitist?
Nah bro, being good at maths is something to be proud of, and it's useful to have a good understanding of stats for psych. Be proud of yourself.

>>5183240

It is when you consider the social pressure of their peers and friends to do meth. It's evolutionarily advantagous to remain within social groups, even if it's a bit self-destructive.

Plus, people don't just get addicted to meth. They get addicted to other drugs, and ramp up to meth when the high doesn't last anymore. We've already discussed in this thread how rewarding behaviour like drug-taking is rational, it's not a hard train of logic to follow.

Psychology isn't the study of the mind, it's the study of behaviour, it's as legit as philosophy.

Not saying philosophy isn't legit, it just isn't a science. And just because philosophy birthed science the doesn't mean philosophy = science.

>>5180977
>Anon is saying our behavour, now, is explained by our evolutionary develpement. Anon is refuteing previous-anon who claims that we behave irrationaly.
I really do not think all of human behaviour in the modern era, all irrational behaviour, can be explained by evolutionary development.

We can behave irrationally due to emotional response, not thinking through our actions, or society's influence on us/peer's influence.

Not to say psychology is all bullshit, just disagree with the claim that pretty much all of our irrational behaviour can be explained away as it would be good for us because evolution. Not always the case.

>>5183254

Well, I'm not educated enough to say, I guess, but I do not think all of irrational human behaviour in the modern age can be explained by evolutionary psych.

Humans still do irrational shit that benefits no-one, due to emotional response and upbringing/society, I think.

>>5183290

I agree that not all behaviour can be explained via evolutionary psychology, but I hardly think that because of it you can say that human beings aren't rational. If we weren't rational being, society would be a lot more fucked than it is now.

>>5183289
Alright, what is the study of the mind, then? I want to go into that, what is it?

>>5183400
neurology derp

/sci/ likes to put down other sciences so they can feel better about their own career paths.

Biologists put down psychologists, chemists put them down, and so on.

It's all intellectual masturbation.

Are people honestly saying, "I don't understand why people do things, ergo the study of psychology is crap?"

"I feel I'm smart and educated, so if I don't understand something I haven't studied, it is either mysterious and unknowable, fuctioning only through the will of a god; or not worth studing."

>>5183210
this /b/tard just pwned Mr. AssPissed - and honestly is one of the most reasonable people in this thread (hmm, maybe it's because he doesn't ascribe to a single scientific dogma)

Fucking drama queen scientists.

Btw, I am "this guy" (see image)

>>5183254
NO. Big NO's @ this. Meth and drug used hijack the reward pathway, which =/= evolutionary psychology, vistigial group instinct etc.

>>5183410
neuroscience, dummy. Neurology is where you go when you have a brain tumor, parkinson's etc.

ology...PATHOLOGY...DISEASE....see the resemblance?

>>5183433
of course, I use the term "drama queen scientists" loosely, as no one here even has a job in science, let alone a PhD

>>5183290
Wait, so you do agree that:
>>...emotional response, not thinking through our actions, or society's influence on us/peer's influence.
...are under the pervue of psychology, right? It's just that you are arguing against my evolutionary behaviourist view, that phylogeny explains the existence of those drives.
Because if you mean the existence of those motivations even partially invalidates the study of the mind, I have no response.
>>5183410
If you are a behaviorist sure; today Skinner would have been a neurologist. Most neurologists I know seem to think that most of the mind is irrelevant to their field.
(inb4: not relevant to my studies =/= no relevance to anyone)
>>5183417
>>5183423
Are we realy that disdainful of other disciplines, here.

>>5183433
>>5183443
Politics and Economics always trumps Science.

>>5183523
WHAT IS THIS COMIC

>>5183543
Its name is “Spinnerette”,

Because there is no way to predict the difference between relative and absolute error in the numerical methods of the method-independent experimental based coefficients.

/thread.

Now go away subhuman.

>>5183441
-ology is "the study of." Just because the hippy- pureresearchfags got a bug up their ass about the MDs monopolising their word back in the '80 there was no reason to invent a term for the interdisciplinary study of the organ of behavour. >>5183571
Are you trying to say that the numerical relationships being tested are not separable from the assumptions of particular researchers, in psychology, and that is why it is shit-for-science?
Or was this technobabble?
Maybe I'm just tired, the sentence sounds grammatical and I understand the common use of all phrases used, in context, yet am having trouble parsing your statement.

>>5183289

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. It came out of 'Philosophy of the Mind'. There are two big branches: Behaviour and Cognition. So when someone says Psychology is the study of the mind, there right!

>>5183400


Psychology:

the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context

Neuropsychology:

the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context

Cognitive Science:

the study of thought, learning, and mental organization, which draws on aspects of psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and computer modelling.

>>5183433

Hi, I'm Mr. AssPissed, and no. I don't feel pwned. I feel exalted by the fact you have to resort to living vicariously through others just feel confident about yourself.

Thank you Waffles.

>>5183497

>Are we realy that disdainful of other disciplines, here.

Yes, we really are that disdainful of other disciplines. I think it comes from the attitude of needing to constantly endorse their discipline's unique scientism. (Psychfags are just as guilty). It's almost like a disgust consumes them if the 'dog-whistling' doesn't speak to their purview science.

But I think the reason psychology gets shitted on the most, is because mostly /sci/ thinks psychology is overly-laced with value judgements (or at least prone to having them). Which is false, and chiefly stated from a prejudice disposition. It comes from a place of immaturity still stuck to the belief that Science defines Reality—it doesn't, Science defines actualities.

-ologies are like -isms, just some few fucking assholes with an idea.

it's all totally unprovable, unscientific bullshit used for political purposes in order to control you fucking retards.

>>5180931
>Your asking a troll (not me) to submit relevant evidence? Isn't the fact that they footnoted at all, goodenough, you also expect the footnote to support their claim?

The statement: "because it's all unscientific bullshit," juxtaposed next to the cited article implies: that because it's discussing erroneous research in psychology it affixes bullshit to all of psychology. I'm not asking, I challenging the claim implied.

The post looks to say, "All of psychology is unscientific bullshit, and here's an article supporting that claim."

(And the cartoon only seems to be adding to the mockery in this context.)

I'm saying the article doesn't support that at all. If there's anything to add to what the article does say, it would be that this article should remind us that what scientists know is influenced by how they produce knowledge.

A lesson to be heeded by the author of >>5178510

>>5179291
>wow, a psych person claiming science is somehow PREJUDICED against psych. pfffft.

No. I'm saying /sci/ is prejudiced against psych

>you are deluding yourself if you think psych is a hard science.

The only delusion here is the belief: hard and soft are terms used to describe a discipline's validity. They don't. Hard and soft are just terms given arbitrarily

>>5179504

>I mention this in my previous post .
>While neuro can be quite soft as well, it is still a step above psych.

What makes neuroscience harder than psychology? What do you mean by hard and soft any way?

>>5179516

You have a faulty perception about what science is. To say a science's softness is described by how soft it methods are, you're just being deflationary.

And your usage of P-value is misplaced here, or I'm assuming you're thinking P-values are a evidential testament to how a science, in its totality, is soft.

The bigotry isn't unseen, it's blatantly obvious. Just look at any post that use psychological terms and theories as examples to discredit Psychology. It's blatantly obvious that those people don't know what they're talking about, and are barking from a superiority complex.

>>5179569

You're missing the point. 'Success' isn't being used here to mean economic prosperity, it's being used to mean the ability in society to direct policy.

To say science is successfully is to reflect how we appeal to it for value judgments, it's a remark about how science is used as an institution of authority over people.

So, if anything wants to have the same power that science has in society, it must present itself as a science. Sometimes we get fooled, sometimes we don't

>>5179604

You want to clarify that?

psychology != science

>>5179626

Explain to me behavioral neuroscience, briefly. And how exactly is that supporting your claim?

>neuroscience is an umbrella field that encompasses...

This makes you sound like you think the disciplines are fashioned some hierarchy. Which is clearly not the case. Why would think that?

Your example is poor is reeks of ego.

>>5179633
>problem with psychology is that you use subjective criteria

Nope.

Show me a psychological study that does that. Inb4 you submit some pop-psychology bullshit, by 'study' I mean like a report you might find in a scientific journal.

>>5179644
>but the question is why sci cant incorporate irrational things

How did you come to that?

>>5179653

And the same can be said about the poster in reply and his upholding of neuroscience

>>5179694

I don't get this. Are you saying >>5179470 is the accuser and needs to submit evidence?

>>5179900

This is correct.

>>5180730


Not sure, but you sound like you're trying to bait someone. You should know 4chan has a tendency to cater to the likes of using terms in a derogatory fashion.

>>5183433
>(hmm, maybe it's because he doesn't ascribe to a single scientific dogma)

If pics of nazism is any indication of your trail of threads, don't speak too quickly. You seemed to fastened to a dogma about neuroscience.

>>5183218
Well, I am an egocentric, see >>5181083
so I felt the need to respond, dispite having been away, Some of us have jobs. I mean, I obviously don't, but some of us might.
>>5180760
The point would be that your meaning was unclear. Actualy I was being pertinent, now I'm derailing; the difference is important.
>>5184785
At least one of us has lardonicaly proposed a actual list of criteria to be considered "hard" and I have only found one person refuting it, several of us have mentioned or aluded to simular but not identical qualifyers. I think it might help us to define whether or not psychology is "hard" if the poster tersely defines the term before using it. Then a repondent can then disect either or both the criteria and the degree to which psychology fits. I would propose a definition of "hard" but I've alread said I'm a troll and that is too easy.
>>5184957
That is what I took their meaning to be, however I think we all could stand to suport our assertions more in this thread.

>>5185445 samefaging
>>5185010
In a sence, yes I am baiting; I was hoping for a responce, as I did not quite understand, and accepted that the fault might be my own. It sounded like Anon was questioning my statement that the use of the term "autism," was being used in a clinicaly incorrect fashion. Yes,I realise the prevalence of the use it is being put to here, which I am generaly asshurt about, for personal reasons that I have given >>5180931
but thought that in this particular thread it deserved especial attention. Missuse of the terms of the science under discussion seems relevant to me, but then I'm apparently viewed as incapable of rational discourse by some.
>>5185038
Ah, but "Mr Waffels" was refering to me, not himself. For what little it's worth, I promice that I am a different Anon. About half my posts I avatarfaged, the more jockular ones.
Which reminds me, I feel I owe him something.
>>5183433
While we apparently disagree on somethings, your compliment boosted my fragile but rampant ego, thank you very much. I was awarded an internet and herby pass it on to you for the nomination and great kindness, it is well deserved.

Science can be applied to everything, however not everything has facts as precise as those obtained from controlled experiments in physics and chemistry.

One of the challenges of psychology is to draw objective conclusions from inaccurate or subjective evidence, yet many psychologists fail to recognize the limitations of this evidence.

Let's say there are some statistics which show loose correlations and a psychologist decides to create a theory based on the findings of these statistics. On their own the statistics are valid within a margin of error, however if 2 of these statistics are used to support a theory the margin of error increases, the more complex the theory the wider the margin of error, without proper analysis you end up with people claiming autism is caused by vaccinations or that neuroses is always due to an overbearing mother or sexual repression and so forth.

>>5185464
>Ah, but "Mr Waffels" was refering to me, not himself. For what little it's worth, I promice that I am a different Anon. About half my posts I avatarfaged, the more jockular ones.

How do you know he was referring to you. And how do you know he knows who is prescribing what dogma. And how do you know when a dogma is being given.

This thread doesn't seem to make since any more. It looks like everybody's just dropping vocabulary terms and expecting others to already get 'it'. You included.

If so much of this thread momentum is dependent on how a hardness or a softness affixes a science with being shit-tier, and how the misuse of terms derails the validity, wouldn't it be prudent in your best interest to state the terms and conditions clearly. Wouldn't it make more sense to seek a better understanding at how something is being judged, or at least called out to be judged, before you claim an invalid judgment.

As an example:

What makes you think psych is shit?—how do you support that claim.

What makes a science hard or soft?—Is a science just one of the two, or is it a mixture.

And how does that play into prescribing something with prestige.

Is there any science you hold to a prestige?—what's your basis for that?

Does your experience with either psych or your prefered science give any good grounding to give substantial examples.

Can you genuinely know when you're looking at actual science from a discipline you're not familiar with, and distorted perception of it?

>>5185513

You're not describing an error of the science itself, you're describing an error with the scientist. Your claim can be called out on any science including physics or chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry have some of the worst habits in the discipline of science of making unsubstantiated claims, but that's more of a reflection on the practitioners. I think the history of Theoretical Physics or Theoretical Chemistry can show your claim is just plain wrong.

>>5185513
>One of the challenges of psychology is to draw objective conclusions from inaccurate or subjective evidence

That's not psychology. No research psychologist, nor any scientist would ever "draw objective conclusions from inaccurate or subjective evidence"

What makes you think psychology does that, let alone any science?

>>5185600
I thought it was obvious whom he was refering to.
I hereby apologise for my overloquacious verbosity..er..my using to many words and them being obs...vocabulary words. I am unlaconic (lit: I speak in a manner likely to get me kicked into a pit by King Leonidas).
I liked what you had to say, a lot, but it is not likely to happen, you are dreaming. A nice dream, but unfortunately we are not likely to get arguments in the well structured, supported manner you discribe on /sci/. If you want people to give proof or reason for their claims, start a math problem thread or go on /mlp/ and ask who is the best pony. Why would you expect logical arguments or supported assertions on /sci/?
>>5185513
>>5185624
>>5185642
I agree with you all, please humor me and provide the Anon I was responding to above with an example to support your statements.
A clinicaly or accademicaly recognised psychologist who failed to recognise their bias (not Freud).
A similarly credited physical scientist making unsubstantiated claims (inb4 some wag thinks the cold-fusion thing a dozen years ago was a science thing, not a media thing).
An example of the standards the legitimate psycology comunity holds itself to.

Saged for dead thread no one cares about save me.

>>5187054
How come the troll is the only one who wanted this to be an actual discussion instead of wild claims and name calling?

>>5185600
I was referring to >>5187054. Otherwise, I agree with what you have to say.

Also, maybe I'm wrong (this is my first time checking this board out), but I have to say the majority of posters are childish tosspots, and (at most) in undergrad right now, if not highschool.