/sci/ - Science & Math

No. Next question.

Theyre a collection of hypothesies on their respective topics, some could argue that some are also theories and that then depends. if there were only hypothesies, then its mumbo jumbo. if they have proper theories, then its a science. tbh i dont know much about them, but im guessing they like to be sciences because they have theories proved within half a sigma

A more pertinent question would be
>which social scientists are really scientists

>>6272900
i vote linguists and cognitive psychologists, with economists being almost mathematicians and everyone else being full of shit.

>>6272854
>they have theories proved within half a sigma
this. If they are to be considered science we must first accept their confidence intervals have to be much smaller than those of natural science.

>>6272908
agreed. History can also be approached scientifically (and it should!)

>>6272900
This is dead-on.

I would only add that scientific thinking can be applied nearly everywhere. It's not the field that limits you, it's your approach and methodology.

yes

>>6272843
real question is:
are their conclusions equali valid?

Why is Freud regarded so highly when the time and place he lived in were completely abnormal to anything before or since, thus changing the people within that time and place?

>>6274631
What

>>6274645
The depression in post WWI Germany, when he did all of his key research. Kids were forced to work to help the families eat, of which a lot went without. The economic situation bled into the culture something fierce because it was so bad. How can you take accurate psychological data with such culture shock?

>>6272908
>linguists
*some linguists

>>6274657
Freud didn't use scientific methods

>>6274700
Freud was a doctor of medicine. Are you saying medicine isn't a science?

>>6274706
Read the post again you stupid fuck. He used his own method of psychoanalysis in his study, not medicine. Therefore : not science.

>>6274712
Psychoanalysis is very rigorous science.

>>6274716
Then so is womyns studies

>>6274712
He was a strict empiricist read more you undereducated faggot.

>>6274718
It is. What's your point?

>>6274722
> He was a strict empiricist
So is most religious people.
> It is.
People don't even bait these days

>>6274729
>argumentum ad piscem

>>6274735
> meme arrows

>>6274716
0/10

>>6274750
Psychoanalysis is math. It comes right after complex analysis and functional analysis.

>>6274753
read the rules please. inane trolling garbage belongs to /b/

>>6274762
Then why aren't you going there with your silly maymays?

>>6274765
Because i'm not you. Now take your shitposting and go where you belong.

>>6274770
>projecting

>>6274729
>So is most religious people.

What does that have to do with anything? Isn't method of essence, not field?

>>>/x/

Is biology a social science?

>>6274762
Argumentum ad lapidem. I genuinely question the amount of knowledge the general /sci/ has concerning psychological methods.

>>6274775
> claim empirical evidence is qualified enough for science
> redirect someone to /x/
oh, the irony
>>6274785
> I genuinely question the amount of knowledge the general /sci/ has concerning psychological methods.
Probably none. We don't deal with pseudo-science.

>>6274805
>implying empirical evidence doesn't qualify as science

Are you denying evolution?

>psychology
>science
pick one

>>6274753
Interesting. Where can I learn more about it?

>>6274815
> what are fossils
> what is genetic predisposition
> what is survival of the fittest
Do you even study in the scientific field ? You sound a lot like a burger flipper.

>>6274819
Tell me how those are not empirical evidence. Would you like to look up the word "empirical" in a dictionary?

>>6274819
And this is based on more than empiricism?

Let's all remember that at one time, math was considered a near useless activity that was often ridiculed.

>>6274819
>Do you even study in the scientific field ?

Nah, I'm a pseudoscientist. I research quantum mechanics, which is more philosophy than science.

>>6274828
But that's still true today.

>>6274826
>>6274827

em·pir·i·cal
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Fossils are compared by computer analysis to see which family of species they belong to

You can't even observe genetic predisposition directly, you can only test it through DNA

I guess I should have clarified the last one with survival of the fittest + mutations. This is provable through experimentation.

Please do some research before trying to engage in a scientific argument so you don't embarrass yourselves.

>>6274831
Yes but only by ignorant pseudo intellectual Marxists who only believe in the value of praxis oriented science like the science culture of soviet russia.

>>6274837
>implying pure math is any different from philosophy

>>6274826
Because uncountable nouns aren't used with plurals.

>>6274836
>You can't even observe genetic predisposition directly, you can only test it through DNA
>you can only test it through DNA

Isn't that observation though?

What are you even arguing at this point? that it only qualifies as science if it can't be observed directly?

>>6274826
>>6274827
> if you can see it, its nothing more than emprical evidence
wow. you two should stay out of /sci/

>>6274829
Quantum mechanics involves no philosophy you retarded teenager

Go back to debating philosophical interpretations with your classmates during your lunch hour and leave actual quantum mechanics alone

>>6274843
Contain that autism. Read again and suspend judgement.

>>6274840
Pure math is fun. Philosophy isn't.

>>6274848
The physics of quantum mechanics is trivial. All the research is done in the philosophy. Schrodinger's cat opens many questions regarding the validity of logic and the role of consciousness.

>>6274845
see : >>6274843

>>6274849
come see me when you learn how to form an argument.

>>6274836
By this definition, you just threw a large portion of the natural scientists under the bus.

>>6274855
You don't understand your own method do you? Undergrad?

>>6274856
Something can be empirical AND be proven by testing. Are you so close minded that you needed that to be explained ? Seriously, why are you even on this board ?

>>6274850
>Pure math is fun
Pointless abstract puzzles are boring.

>Philosophy isn't.
Philosophy is highly intellectual. You should try it. For example have you ever asked yourself what it means to "know" something? Can we really "know" something or can we only "recognize"?

>>6274857
> still no counter-arguments
> resorting to personal attacks
Thanks for playing. You can go back to /b/ now.

>>6274858
>Something can be empirical AND be proven by testing.

Haha, you don't even know the difference between "and" and "or". Do you even logic?

>>6274859
>Pointless abstract puzzles are boring.
pleb detected

>Philosophy is highly intellectual.
maybe for children

>For example have you ever asked yourself what it means to "know" something? Can we really "know" something or can we only "recognize"?
yeah, when i was in kindergarten

>>6274861
Will you come with me?

>>6274868
>yeah, when i was in kindergarten

Today?

>>6274861
The laboratory experiment is not the same as empirical investigation. You seem to suck at science.

>>6274861
The irony...

>>6274854
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

>>6274858
Yes, so this could be applied to sciences like psychology. I think it's explained nicely here >>6273014

>>6274869
don't worry little kid, false memory syndrome is very common for your age

you should really go to bed now though

>>6274876
You argue like someone who thinks himself a badass, in a psychology thread.

>>6274875
>to sciences like psychology
>like psychology

>psychology
>science
lolno

>>6274880
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
I would think psychology falls under this.

>>6274876
I am deeply impressed by how much patheticism it takes to waste your time writing such a useless shitpost.

>>6274880
Why not? Why can't human cognition be subjected to scientific methodology? Is science that limited?

>>6274881
>not having the mental age of a kindergartner
>must be a badass!!!!!1eleven

>>6274883
That's why your posts belong on /b/

>>6274888
Re-read your post autist.

>>6274889
I don't need to, for I am not the one with the cerebral abnormalities.

>>6274888
>>6274894
You're not even enjoying this.

>>6274882
shit tier troll

psychology doesnt study shit or make any scientific observations/experiments

>>6274884
primate cognitive neuroscience

>>6274905
Haven't your education taught you not to open your mouth when you have no idea what you are talking about. You discard whole scientific fields a priori without even having sufficient data.

>>6274920
what are you talking about? i'm not discarding any scientific field

>>6274925
Yes you are

>>6274927
no i'm not

>>6274934
> psychology doesnt study shit or make any scientific observations/experiments
you have no idea what you are talking about

>>6274905
Psychology studies the mind and its behavior. And yes, it does make scientific observations/experiments (refer to the earlier definition given). Where are you getting your information?

>>6274935
>Psychology studies the mind and its behavior.
no, that's cognitive neuroscience

>And yes, it does make scientific observations/experiments
it doesn't at all

every experiment done in psychology is uncontrolled and statistically insignificant

derp let me give you a personality survey is not an observation

>refer to the earlier definition given
you mean the one that shows how you're wrong?

>Where are you getting your information?
science

>>6274938
i do unlike you

>>6274941
Definition of psychology according to the APA:Psychology is the study of the mind and behavior. The discipline embraces all aspects of the human experience — from the functions of the brain to the actions of nations, from child development to care for the aged. In every conceivable setting from scientific research centers to mental healthcare services, "the understanding of behavior" is the enterprise of psychologists.

You also must consider that cognitive neuroscience is a facet of psychology.

"Every experiment done in psychology is uncontrolled and statistically insignificant." That's a pretty broad statement, could you give evidence showing that every single experiment ever performed in the field falls under these categories?

The definition of science allows psychology to be apart of it, unless you show said evidence requested in the earlier paragraph.

>>6274944
nice pseudoscientific source you got there

>You also must consider that cognitive neuroscience is a facet of psychology.
bullshit

> That's a pretty broad statement, could you give evidence showing that every single experiment ever performed in the field falls under these categories?
go look in a psychology journal

>The definition of science allows psychology to be apart of it
the definition fails to hold for psychology, please work on your reading comprehension

>>6274958
Um, the APA is the American Psychological Association, and it's quite a reputed organization.

>go look in a psychology journal
Ok, I have a copy of the "American Psychologist" next to me(vol. 68, no.2). The studies shown in the journal meet your requirements. Also, a psychological journal wouldn't contain every single experiment performed in the field.

>the definition fails to hold for psychology, please work on your reading comprehension
Until you can directly prove your point, it's moot.

Social sciences are very rigorous in their methodology. Just because the word "social" scares you autists, that doesn't invalidate their usefulness and importance.

Hey /sci/ - what are the best reads or places to get information on the stock market and how it works? I know nothing right now and would like a little jump start from some texts.
Thanks

>>6276468
Invest in dogecoin. Currency of the future.

>>6274965
>Um, the APA is the American Psychological Association, and it's quite a reputed organization.
maybe for pseudoscientists

>Ok, I have a copy of the "American Psychologist" next to me(vol. 68, no.2). The studies shown in the journal meet your requirements.
i doubt that, if any of the papers did not lack scientific rigor they would be published in a behavioral/cognitive neuroscience journal

>Also, a psychological journal wouldn't contain every single experiment performed in the field.
that was never implied

>Until you can directly prove your point, it's moot.
it's not my fault you can't understand it

>>6277318
What does cognitive neuroscience research?

inb4 intelligence
Please keep the /pol/ garbage out.

>>6277329
go away troll nobody likes you

>>6277335
I asked a science question.

>>6277329
>Please keep the /pol/ garbage out.

>>6277335
>nobody likes you

This is not true. My boyfriend likes me very much.

>>6277341
>global rule 3
>Keep /pol/ in /pol/.

>>6276463
They aren't, they are subjective which specifically why they are in their categories.

>>6277349
Subjectivity doesn't exist. If you want to believe in dualistic qualia magic, go to /x/.

>>6277335
>lacking the education to answer the question
>resorts to yelling "troll"

How old are you? 12? GTFO

Are there really people who don't believe in psychoanalysis? Freud didn't just make that up, you know. The ego and the id are both empirically verified.

>>6274935
You psychofags seriously need to fuck off, psychology is not science. In fact you could call it psuedoscience. Literally a group of bullshit made up using ad hoc make shit up as you go first principles.

Psychology doesn't make 'objective' measurements of shit. Psychologist would claim that looking at human behavior is objective but it fucking isn't.

Its just an indistinguishably vague approximation of underlying neurological processes. With our level of understanding there is fuck all we know about mental processes.

>>6277375
>IQ too low to understand how research in psychology is done

>>6277375
>implying mental processes are metaphysical magic

Back to /x/ with that dualism, please.

>>6277375
"Muh feelings" is not an argument against valid research. >>>/pol/

>>6277375
Ironic how you psychologically (!) convinced yourself that psychology was wrong.

>>6277360
look it up on wikipedia

>>6277373
no take pseudoscience to /x/

>>6277393
What is wikipedia?

>>6277384
I didn't say it was metaphysical magic all I'm explaining is why psychology is pseudoscience.

>>6277395
Psychoanalysis is real science. Did you know that most of your thoughts are unconsciously sexually motivated?

>>6277400
Your argument (read: fallacy) was "hurr durr the human mind is magical black box". Dualism belongs on >>>/x/. Please go there.

>>6277398
look it up on google

>>6277401
what the fuck is wrong with you stop trolling

>>6277386
Its not 'valid' research and I just explained to you quite coherently why it isn't.

Come back when you have actual arguments fagtron

>>6277409
what is shitposting?

>>6277407
What is google?

>>6277408
>I just explained
Your childish whining doesn't explain anything.

>Come back when you have actual arguments
Quite ironic that this comes from someone who thinks "muh feelings" is an argument

>>>/pol/

>>6277407
>is being disproved scientifically
>resorts to yelling "troll"

Does your mom know you're browsing 4chan?

>>6277414
psychoanalysis doesn't use the scientific method and is bullshit made up pseudoscience

>>6277404
No it wasn't I never suggested anything of the sort I actually didn't say anything about the nature of the mind. I said that psychology is psuedo science and then I explained WHY.

Plugging your ears and redirecting me to >>>/x/ doesn't refute anything I said.

Sorry =p

>>6277410
a codeword for anti fun

>>6277416
By dismissing psychology you are making the claim that the human mind cannot be researched on the basis of observing behaviour. Thus you are attributing metaphysical or supernatural qualities to the mind. Go back to >>>/x/, dualism retard.

>>6277422
ignore this psycho

>>6277418
Freud was a medical scientist. All his results are empirical.

ITT: liberals getting so mad over IQ tests that they deny the validity of psychology

>>6277423
Which one?

>>6277422
Wrong, I never said the mind CANT be researched anything can be researched. But just because said thing is being researched does not mean its findings are scientifically credulous.

If the brain was simple enough to understand, we wouldn't be smart enough to comprehend it.

>>6277416
>and then I explained WHY.

Can you repeat your explanation after wiping up all these tears? Because I can't see it anywhere. Over all the crying you must have forgotten to post it.

>>6277431
Why can't we research the human mind by observing its effects, i.e. behaviour?

inb4 muh qualia

>>6277426
I actually explained why psychology is pseudoscience read the thread. Nothing I said incorrect, if it is please point it out instead of posting meaningless caricatures which nothing to the discussion

>>6277435

>>6277375

>>6277440
You said it's pseudoscience because it detects differences in intelligence and that hurt your feelings. Well, my dear libtard, science isn't your fairy tale fantasy land, science is pure motherfucking logic. Science creates facts you can't deny. Cry more - on your way back to reddit.

>>6277443
Human behaviour is objectively observable. What are you gonna deny next? Maybe gravity?

>>6277441
Because I said before mental processes cannot be observed all we have are objective human behavior. But if all of your theories are based on empirically guided theoretical inferences then as a result no laws or anything can be to quantify phenomenon.

No objective ones anyways

>>6277447
Observing something changes the way it behaves.

>>6277451
>quantum mysticism

>>>/x/

>>6277453
>muh dualism
>muh qualia
>hurr durr mental processes are magic

Read Dennett and get the fuck out of my science board, dualist scum.

>>6277426
>psychology
>able to measure intelligence
ha ha ha ha

>>6277453
>But if all of your theories are based on empirically guided theoretical inferences then as a result no laws or anything can be to quantify phenomenon.

Are you seriously denying the validity of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? Never go full retard.

>>6277456
Again I never said anything about mysticism or any of the other things you are blithering about. I never said ANYTHING about the nature of the mind.

>>6277457
Yours clearly cannot be measured because it is too low.

>>6277460
You said mental processes cannot be observed. Just get the fuck out already with your scientific illiteracy.

>>6277458
I'm not denying the scientific method. In fact I'm explaining that psychology DOESNT follow the scientific method because the very thing it trys to explain, mental processes, isn't observable.

If you can't see the thing you trying to explain take place then the totality of the scientific method falls apart. As it always does in psychology.

>>6277461
my intelligence is higher than yours

>>6277453
There you heard it guys. The scientific method is obviously wrong because it hurts this little fellow's feelings ...

RIP in peace, science

>>6277454
Knowing that you are being watched changes the way you think and act and talk.

This happens even if you only think you are being observed at a subconscious level. This has been proven by tests where two people are asked to talk about something in the presence of various objects.

When a phone is present, people have much more shallow conversations. This just goes to show that anyone who puts their smart phone on the table during dinner is a fucking asshole.

>>6277471
Intelligence cannot be quantified. Fuck off back to >>>/pol/ with that racist garbage.

>>6277475
If that's true, then why are asians so much smarter than blacks?

>>6277468
You outright denied the validity of the scientific method. How retarded are you?

>>6277475
>>6277426 and >>6277461 were posted by you?

>>6277463
Mental processes can't be observed you fucking moron. Why is it you think psychologists use physical behavior to form their theories. Because that is all they have. They cannot see the phenomenon they are attempting to explain.

>>6277482
>this is what /pol/ actually wants to believe

They are not. All humans are of equal intelligence. Races do not exist. We are all the same species and the notion of cognitive differences doesn't even make sense.

>>6277481
If they can't be observed, they don't exist. Hitchens' razor kills your dualism faggotry. Back to >>>/x/

>>6277479
No I didn't please read my post again.

>>6277492
You did. Please read your own post again.

>>6277491
Everyone observes consciousness.

>>6277491
If you cannot see something physically then your default position should always be one of skepticism not inclination.

>>6277453
>>6277453
>if all of your theories are based on empirically guided theoretical inferences then as a result no laws or anything can be to quantify phenomenon.

Holy shit, this is creationist level retardation.

>>6277500
I don't. I've never seen it. How can it be observed? Please tell me.

>>6277499
Are you skeptical about Santa Clause? Are you skeptical about invisible demons in your closet? No, you're not. Stop being a fucking hippocrite.

>>6277493
I'll try one last time to explain this to you. I'm saying that psychology doesn't follow the scientific method because the phenomenon it attempts to explain cannot be directly seen.

If of course I'm incorrect in my statement please explain how we physically observe a mental process.

>>6277506

The belief in question is irrelevant.

>>6277453
>if all of your theories are based on empirically guided theoretical inferences then as a result no laws or anything can be to quantify phenomenon.

In other words: "physics is wrong lol".
Most retarded post of all times.

>>6277506
>I've never seen it.
If you have recurrent processing in your prefrontal cortex, you do.

>>6277501
Great so why don't you explain how I'm wrong instead of flinging insults. It gives the impression that you don't have an argument.

>>6277507
>because the phenomenon it attempts to explain cannot be directly seen.

Behaviour can be seen directly. Behaviour is objectively observable and explicable. No need for any dualism magic. Fuck off.

>>6277509
non sequitur

>>6277510
Exactly. All baseless beliefs are to be dismissed equally.

>>6277515
>hurr durr science is wrong
>hurr durr prove me wrong

>>6277513
Psychology attempts to explain mental functions by use of human behavior. Which I've explained in previous posts that this is only a vague approximation of neurological functions

>>6277522
Psychology observes and explains human behaviour. Human behaviour is objectively observable and explicable. Get the fuck out with your dualism drivel.

>>6277520
I didnt say science is wrong i said psychology is pseudoscience.

>>6277524
Psychology is the study of the human mind and it uses objective behavior to try to explain mental processes.

But as i have explained countless times all objective bodily measures are only vague approximations of the underlying neural dynamics.

>>6277517
>Exactly. All baseless beliefs are to be dismissed equally.

The beliefs can be dismissed, but opposed to what you said in this post: >>6277491

It doesnt mean the thing in question does not exist.

>>6277533
You denied the validity of the scientific method. Kill yourself.

>>6277533
Psychology is the study of human behaviour. Human behaviour can be observed and studied scientifically.

>>6277533
You know you're not trolling anyone. Nobody is believing your bullshit and nobody is gonna get mad over it. Yet you keep wasting hours and hours of your life repeating garbage you don't even believe every night on /sci/. I'm genuinely curious, what's your mental problem?

>>6277542
No, i didnt, i said that psychology uses a flawed version of the scientific method.

As im sure any third grader can inform you, the scientific method begins with an observation. Can you see anything take place in the human mind? No. You cant.

Which effectively reduces the field down to a pseudoscience or a 'social science' as some like to call it.

Its the funniest thing. With science i know the exact temperature water will boil ever. single. time. With psychology you have no similar laws unfortunately. Its just "some do and some dont"

>>6277553
>the scientific method begins with an observation.
We observe behaviour.

>>6277553
What's your name?

>>6277553
>a flawed version of the scientific method.

It is "flawed" because it hurts your feelings?

>>6277543
Psychology is the study of the human mind. Psychical human behavior has already been explained by other sciences, psychology attempts to explain mental processes.

>>6277551
Its not a matter of belief or opinion its just fact. Ive explained what the scientific method is and i have explained countless times how and why psychology does not follow the method.

>>6277563
>dodging the question

You are so predictable.

>>6277563
Psychology is the study of human behaviour. Your dualistic "mental process" garbage doesn't exist.

>>6277556
Yes, we use human behavior because we cannot directly measure the internal experiences of others whether animal or human the study of the mind must be indirect and based entirely upon theoretical inference. Because of these difficulties there are no metrics that can be used to unambiguously changes in mental states in any living creature.

>>6277561
No, refer to the other half of my post for why it is flawed.

>>6277517
>non sequitur
It follows.

>>6277573
Quantify*

>>6277573
>muh qualia

Go away. You don't understand science. >>>/x/

>>6277569
psy·chol·o·gy

noun
1.
the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context.

>>6277578
Its not that i dont understand science its simply that psychology is pseudoscience. As are most social sciences.

Feynman explains it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw

>>6277583
Feynman isn't qualified to talk about anything other than physics.

>>6277573
We use human behaviour because that's what we want to explain. Science doesn't give a shit about qualia. We explain observations.

>>6277584
Feynman is a scientist. He can talk about science.

ITT: People with undergraduate degrees pretend to be smarter than experts in fields they have never studied in any significant depth.

>>6277611
welcome to /sci/!!

>>6277593
Feynman was a retard with a low IQ. Only thanks to his autism he was able to understand a small area of physics deeply. His intellectual disability in fields outside of physics and his social retardation clearly disqualify him from stating authoritative opinions on anything but his research.

>>6272843
Of course they are, but they are clearly quite diffusely generalised. Perhaps for good reason.

>>6278131
errr, he had interests and studied under the cream of the crop for not just physics, but chemistry and biology too.
His opinion on the pseudoscience that is psychology is based on flaws in their use (more like lack of use) of the scientific method.

They may not be sciences, but when was it decided that the scientific method was the only worthwhile method of doing things?

>>6278445
His opinion is wrong.

>>6278131
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

>>6279400
Perhaps you should have read that page before applying it incorrectly.

>>6272843
>asks somebody what he thinks
>assumes the answer isn't complete bullshit

>>6278676
It's the only method that consistently gets results.

Yes.
1) Denying the existence of psychological and sociological phenomena is beyond retarded.
2) Social sciences use the scientific method.

>>6280531
This.

Testing hypotheses, doing experiments and publishing/discussing theories/results etc. is by definition science

Psychological economist here. I'm sure most of you wouldn't understand the math I'm using every day.

Social sciences are very hard sciences.

>>6284673
Science - Dark matter
Philosophy - Can't Know Nuthin'
Psychology - all the pills

>>6273014
It can't be approached to ethics or religion. At least not in the sense of proving a god or proving which way is more humane to treat someone.

>>6272843
The definition of the word science is now this debate.

Certain places teach Psychology and Social sciences like a pseudo science while others teach it like a science.

>this question is all about the jimmies

>>6284673
>pursuit of wisdom

There sure is a lot of wisdom in "How can we know anything if our brains aren't real?"

>>6285979
>implying armchair philosophy for children = philosophy
10/10 g8b8m8

I have a PhD in psychology and a degree in psychoanalysis, reading this thread makes me cringe.

Also I have a cute mug with that picture of Freud

>>6272843
Kind of. They're sciences that haven't yet reached maturity and won't until other fields advance technology enough that we can make tools to properly analyze those phenomena that surround the social science fields

>>6286010
What was the subject of your PhD thesis?

>>6286010
>degree in psychoanalysis

I only have a BS degree with a major in Psychology but why would you get your PhD in Psychoanalysis. To me it seemed like the most outdated theory of personality.

Also, the majority of the people in this thread should really need to read up on how research is conducted in Psychology. It has plenty of issues but not following the scientific method isn't one of them.

>>6288379
Outdated? It's not outdated, it's fucking pseudoscience. 'Psychoanalysis' is only useful in therapy because of it's placebo effect.

>>6288401
It isn't even useful in therapy.

>>6288379
>need to read up on how research is conducted in Psychology

How is it conducted?

>>6274716
Freud's theories should not be taught in school. They are without proof or logic; they are obviously the result of too much cocaine and attention whoring.

>>6291717
>Freud's theories should not be taught in school.
They should, even though they are not scientific. Cultural and historical education is important. Freud's theories should be taught in school and it should be discussed in how far they are (in-)accurate today.

>They are without proof or logic;
Within their own axiomatic system they are logical.

>they are obviously the result of too much cocaine and attention whoring.
This might be true.

yes

>>6290066
Yeah it is. You don't know how therapy works do you?

>>6291717
>Freud's theories should not be taught in school.
They are for the sake of history in psychology. Nothing more though.

>>6295562
I tried it and it didn't work.

>>6293613
>Cultural and historical education is important.
nobody cares about that shit

>>6295568
>It didn't work for me. Therefore it does not work.
Modern psychiatry relies on the subject to actually talk to themselves and understand their own problems. This is exactly what happens in psychotherapy sessions. The therapist is only there to facilitate conversation.

But it's obvious you are troll, so whatever

>>6295571
right, lets not learn from the past and make the same mistakes over and over again

>>6295576
>not making mistakes
common sense

>>6272843
would you cuntsider geography a science"?

What are your thoughts on geology?

>>6272843
No.

I'm a chemist (ACS degree) who double majored in history and political science.

>>6272843
No, of course not! We're all le math majors xD

Of course they're not sciences. Maybe if you combined them into one thing, but sociologist argue with anthropologists the way mathematicians and physicist argue. Anthropology mitigated my autism though
>>6296057
Was that hard/expensive?

>>6296063
A 5th year, but I did what I wanted.

Chemistry ate up a gigantic massive fucking chunk of the time with lab classes, but what really helped was that history/poli sci courses essentially boil down to a take home midterm (lengthy paper that graders only look at person wrote the references correctly) and a final of short essays.

Just a sample of how weak social science is at my uni:
My last history professor who specialized in Chinese history couldn't find Iraq or Afghanistan on the world map. I know this because she struggled with it during lecture, while giving an anti-American rant.

>>6295574
Psychoanalysis is not "modern psychiatry". Psychoanalysis is outdated. I know and understand my problems. That doesn't solve them. On the contrary, repeatedly talking about the same problems only strenghtens the negative neuronal patterns. Psychoanalysis can at worst be detrimental.

<span class="math">\newenvironment{consciousness}{}{\begin{consciousness}\end{consciousness}} \begin{consciousness}\end{consciousness}[/spoiler]

>>6272843

The real question is whether or not economics is a good major.

>>6274716
I lol'd

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls

It's only science if it follows the scientific method.

>>6296725
psychoanalysis isn't outdated because it was never relevant to begin with. it's up there with alchemy and astrology

>>6298225
depends on what you think is "good"

>>6277426
>liberals
go back to >>>/pol/

>>6277433
Are you trying to imply that humans are incapable of solving on such a complex context?

>>6298268
Psychoanalysis is still very relevant.

>>6277329
>>6277329
Good goy

>>6295568
Did you do it three hours a week for at least two years?

>>6298278
> shitposting
please go back to >>>/b/

I think Anthropology is the closest of the social sciences to being an actual science.

>>6300123
Yes, I did.

>>6274817
I beg to differ.
Neuroscience-based behavior-oriented research has a very strict methodology. Solid operationalization, absence of metaphysical conclusions and success of practical applications make this field of psychology quite serious.

>>6300075
No serious modern psychology researcher would say that.

>>6300139
>lying on the internet

>>6277426
Binet himself said that IQ only measures one's results to his test.

>>6300160
Not lying.

>>6300161
>appeal to authority

>>6300166
How?
Binet was one of the key developers of the IQ test.
His comments on his own invention is not an "appeal to authority".

>>6300169
And Einstein himself didn't believe in relativity anymore when he was older. That doesn't make him right. Science doesn't care about opinions and beliefs.

>>6300170
It kind of matters when the application of said science involves people getting castrated, getting thrown out of school and being denied access to a country.

I guess liberals are right. It's a giant coincidence that geniuses like Einstein, Kasparov and Jacob Barnett have top IQs and black people get low results, because it's the evil white mans racist test to oppress black people.

Why are liberals even allowed on this board ?

>>6300173
Why would you want to have access to a country where you get castrated and thrown out of school?

>>6300178
It is not coincidence. IQ tests are made to assess certain intellectual capacities.
However, intelligence is not operationalized in a way that it can be measured as a whole with a paper-and-pencil instrument.

>>6300182
Oh my bad. How can it be meausred with ? And what kind of study do you have to support that ?

>>6277426
IQ is garbage and hasn't been proven

>>6300186
"The good thing about science is that it doesn't need to be proven to be true" -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

>>6300186
> It's been used to describe the intelligence of people for decades
> Liberals show up and whine because it doesn't fit their delusional worldviews.
Just get out, and never visit any science board ever again.

>>6300178
fuck off back to /pol/ you bible thumping shithead

black people are oppressed

>>6300193
> if you call the liberals bullshit you must be from /pol/
I'm getting tired of this shit. I thought /pol/ posting on this board would be bad, but this is actually worse. Please fuck off back to reddit or whatever delusional shithole you came from. This is a science board, not a 'muh feelings > facts' board

>>6300186
The IQ score at age 13 could be viewed as a relatively good indicator for future life outcomes, defined in terms of attained education, occupational status, and
material well being.

>>6300201
No it's not. If it's such an objective test, then why do black people score low on them ? It's obviously a race biased test.

>>6300191
>>6300198
>retarded scam so psychologists can afford to pay their rent
>"delusional worldview"
conservatard misconceptions are hilarious

>>6300205
> Psychologists make their living with free online IQ tests.
> It's all a conspiracy of psychologists
I suggest you just get out before you embarrass yourself further.

>>6300209
>can't accept the SCIENTIFIC FACT that all humans are of equal intelligence
>spews ad hominems and bible references
the only argument from a brainwashed /pol/tard

>>6300203
It's also discriminating against persons with intellectual disabilities. My neighbor's son has down syndrome and he only scored 70 on the IQ test. This proves how IQ is flawed. A good intelligence test would account for other qualities. For example he is very good at riding the bicycle (with stabilizing wheels).

>>6300209
They get tons of profit from advertising revenue, tracking cookies, and collecting user information.

This was about to be a good thread before /pol/ trolls came.

For others with an access to full-text articles databases, I suggest PsycINFO.
Some very interesting journals are listed there (almost all are peer-reviewed).

>>6300218
> advertising revenue, tracking cookies, and collecting user information
It's funny, since the internet was invented and put in play in 1950, yet IQ testing started before 1920's. I guess they were plotting their conspiracies way before the internet right ?

>>6300215
>scientific fact
Post academic studies pls.

Holy shit, this is worse than /b/. At least on there, the retards and trolls make no pretense of being intelligent.

>>6301692
Neither do they here. They go full retard immediately.

>>6272843
Freud is Literature and History at best.
Social Sciences are Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, History, and Economy.
Social Sciences are not Pure Sciences, Law, Literature, Philosophy.
Social Sciences are Sciences because their research methods are scientific, or scientific enough.
They're "social" because it's about human behavior.

>>6302918
History isn't even a social science.

>>6274657
Freud isn't really respected in the scientific community (though there are some kooks). From what I've seen, only philosophers and english majors really give anything he says any credence.

>>6274822
Don't bother.

>>6274817
>>6274880
>>6274905
Since the Boulder conference in the early 1950's psychology, in general, has taken dramatic strides toward empiricism and adherence to the scientific method. However, there are a lot of different fields psychologists take (and not all of them are created equally. For instance, you could get a PsyD (a copout "alternative" to a PhD) or an MA in counseling/"health" psychology. None of those are reasearched based or particularly empirical and, thus, aren't respected as much. However, clinical/neuro/cognitive psychology tracks are very heavily research and empirically focused. Of course, this also depends on the institution one goes to. I go to a very research oriented school, so most of my coursework is very STEM heavy and emphasizes the science of psychology.

>>6274859
I have a pretty limited expose to philosophy, but the few classes I took focused on thinking scientifically (rather, logically). In that respect I think it could be useful for teaching people who are new to a scientific discipline how to think.


Not to be a Pollyanna, but does bickering and petty name calling really get anyone anywhere? I'm not saying we shouldn't disagree with one another, but can't we get through one conversation without calling one another faggots? If this is how someone behaves when confronted with something they disagree with I would hesitate to call them a scientist in the first place. I'm certainly glad I don't work in their labs!

>>6304708

This

>>6272843
Does it need to be?

>>6305519
Yes.

>>6272843
if a theory offers predictions with which it can be eventually deemed true or false, yes i.e. if it is falsifiable. if not, that theory falls under psuedo-science.

nb: "science" and "psuedo-science" are purely definitional; those terms aren't equivalent to "meaningful" and "not meaningful", respectively

>>6300156

> neuroscience based
are you fucking serious? you just proved his point. neuroscience and psychology are two different things, with slight overlaps

>>6307947
Neuroscience is a branch of psycholoy.

Neurology is credible, psychology is far from it.

>>6309950
no it isnt dumbshit

>>6309967
Yes, it is. Go educate yourself.

>>6284693
The humane, and scientific, way of treating someone is making them stronger in any/all aspects in any/all ways possible.

>>6311985
How do you do that?

>>6311956

Neuroscience has recently become its own branch. It is very interdisciplinary and draws from many fields (e.g., mathematics, programming, molecular biology, and etc.). It is important to remember there are different branches within neuroscience itself.

Psychology has been supersede by neuroscience. I have a feeling neuroscience itself will drastically evolve in the future, making a paradigm shift that minimizes the impact of various approaches in favor of others (e.g., computational neuroscience or neuroinformatics vs. reductionist approaches in molecular labs).

>>6311956
no thank you

i don't get my education from pseudo scientists

>>6300138
Bio anth and archaeology definitely are. Cultural anth, not so much.

no
</thread>