/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6350835
>using quotation marks within green text
>"My sides."

>>6350835
>Human brain and hormones are now psychology

Don't forget IQ threads.

>>6350835
welcome to /sci/, take a beer and watch the autists rip each other apart over who can shitpost the most

>"Philosophy isn't science!"
>90% of /sci/ posts consist of rhetorical fallacies

>"Global warming is man made, guys!"
>discussions about AGW contain only insults and shit flinging and no factual evidence

my sides

>"ALL DARKIES ARE DUMB!"
>gets shown counterexamples
>"..t...they're not black enough! They had a single white ancestor 700 years ago!"

My sides.

>"Intelligence means nothing and cannot be measured. Everyeone can do everything with hard work."
>proceeds to use "idiot", "retard" and "low IQ" as insults towards people who disagree

my sides

>>6350886
>>6350835
They have this coming to them

>Westerners up until a hundred years ago had IQs well below the level of retardation by todays standards.
>"Those drastic changes in IQ are not due to evolution, they're due to the environment."

>Some loosely defined groups in the west have slightly lower and higher IQs according to some studies.
>"They're obviously less evolved, it can't possibly be due to the environment."

>"CS is pure math"
>blog posts on /sci/ how his mandatory high school level calculus and linear algebra class are too hard for him

>he fell for the troll

80% of the threads on /sci/ are about asking stupid questions about evolution.

>/sci/ is a board for intellectual discussion about science!
>nothing but shitposting and autism

>>6350935
I don't get the tears part.

>>6350935
Lel. That pic.
*Ma Lady

>be reactionary
>"sociology, psychology, etc., is bullshit"
>theories, that even a critical theorist would find intriguing, about how everything is a sociological ploy

>>6350995
what are you talking about?

>>6351005
nazis

>>6350971
These threads are made by /pol/esmokers who think they're revealing great truths from their schizophrenia board.

>>6350995
>"critical theorist"
>nonsense

>>6351007
so elaborate. how does this make psychology/sociology not bullshit? no one is saying people don't act following certain sociological patterns, but the problem is that sociology only tries to guess them because of the lack of brain data, and their studies are almost always indefinitely shit

>>6351017

How do the flaws of sociology transfer to psychology?

>>6351019
by using the same methods for studies and "proving"

>>6351024
The scientific method?

>>6351024

Psychology does not want to "prove" things. It makes claims about probability. That's why psychology uses statistic. You seem to have some misconceptions about social sciences.

>>6351047
> It makes claims about probability. That's why psychology uses statistic
that's why psychology is bullshit. and how is this not "proving"

>>6351054

"proving" is "verifying". Psychology only falsifies. Do standard error and confidence intervals mean anything to you?

>>6351072
>(tries to) prove that something is false
>it's not proof because i don't want to
and psychology doesn't just falsify

>>6350835
>/sci/ has anything to do with science
>not just a playground for trolls

>>6351076

Name me one instance of empirical work in psychology that actually verifies a claim.

The longer this goes on, the more I get the impression that you neither take your time to even comprehend what I wrote nor have the ability to.

If you test a claim under a 95% confidence interval you do NOT prove anything. Even the number 95% is a completely arbitrary convention.

>>6351124
>money makes you happy
>psychology goes and does questionnaires and "experiments" to verify if the claim is true

what's your point again anyway? what are you putting forward to deny that psychology is bullshit

>>6350835

>Psychology major with a useless bachelor's degree detected.

Your field is useless - anyone who genuinely wants to understand the human brain and hormones goes to neuroscience and other related fields anyways. At least Economics and your other soft-science pals actually produce useful arguments once in awhile.

>>6351135

But it never really verifies the claim. All that tests of significance do is testing if your results are PROBABLY not only produced by coincidence. Once again this is only a claim about PROBABILITY. Not PROOF. (I'm using capital letters now so that you can understand what I've been trying to tell you from the start)

Mindlessly repeating "psychology is bullshit" in every post instead of coming to the conclusion that your concept of psychology might be flawed does not make your claim true. It only makes you look like a dogmatic highschool kid who feels bad for "losing" an argument on the internet.

>>6351167
Nice picture. Added it to my collection, thanks. Also, I'm not OP, if that's what you were getting at.

>>6351203
>proves that something is probable
>ITS NOT PROOF GUISE
why are you so slow?

>>6351226

Are you really resorting to "i can prove that i cant prove something"? That's not the kind of claims that science is after. You are just making a claim about the quality of other claims (meta-claims). It's like I have to spoonfeed you everything.
If you "prove" that something is PROBABLE, what exactly have you said by that? Is it a PROOF for something or merely an estimate/claim of probability? Take your time, I know you have your difficulties with this.

It's hilarious how all you can come up with is basically "no u!"
Anyway, keep up the good work, my friend. I'm out.

>>6351237
>prove
>pruːv/
>verb
>1.
>demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove".

>demonstrates the existence of a high probability by what psychology calls evidence
>ITS NOT A PROOF BECAUSE I DONT LIKE THIS DEFINITION AND YOU'RE STUPID

sure kid, keep posting your condescending pictures maybe someone will take you seriously one day

>>6351265
>colloquial definitions
>on a science board

lol that's not what proof means in science and math

Soon