/sci/ - Science & Math

MRI's are expensive

>>9482197
They use the social scientific method. It's different to the one used in natural science.

>>9482197
I think psychologists have to wait on neuroscience to understand the brain more before they can really start to study psychology

They need more money to misdiagnose people and ruin their lives.
t. marked for life

>>9482197
because it doesnt with bullshit like psychology. it doesnt let you make stuff up

>>9482197
Because they are humanities students so they literally cant understand it

>>9482197
they use the scientific method but they are forced to use metrics that may not be sound

>>9482398
this. they are the most dangerous people on earth.

>>9482384
Theres still alot of questions in theory of mind philosophy that need to be answered.
I feel psychology just makes hidden assumptions on these. And these assumptions are all buried in their theories and methods

>>9482197
Because in traditional sciences, you have a clear distinction on what your trying to achieve. If you wanna understand how matter interacts with each other matter, you formulate methods that can accurately describe what geinueily happens, you know what your trying to achieve.

With psychology, you trying to figure out whether or not certain behaviors are common/normal/okay, what is considered common/normal/okay changes with time and location.

>>9482197
>scientific method
Which one?

>>9482472
>Which one?
Any of them.

>>9482419
No they just study human history and see the patterns.

>>9482477
Alright let's take Kuhn's scientific method

>Have a theory
>Propose hypothesis which follows from said theory
>Confirm hypothesis using methods accepted by your field
>Convince other members of your field that your findings are valid

Which step do you think psychologists are not engaging in? I haven't read a lot of psychological journals, but my impression is that their papers generally have hypotheses, derived from, theories, which they attempt to confirm using statistical/experimental methods, and get their colleagues to validate through the peer review process.

>>9482515
Where did Kuhn write this?

>>9482197
They do. They just have a hard time controlling variables and defining terms.

>>9482554
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Specifically chapters 3 and 4.

Obviously, it's a fairly loose description of how he describes normal science, but that should be the jist of it. Unless you think I left a step out?

>>9482515
(((Thomas Kuhn)))

>>9482592
>2018
>believing in scientific revolutions and the incommensurability thesis

Read this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/

>>9482610
Dealers choice then. Choose a scientific method, list the steps, and point out the ones you think psychologists are violating.

>>9482197
Because psychology is a pseudoscience
A statistical model applied to human behavior can be far more accurate and predictive than a """"""""psychologist""""""""

I leaned that the hard way. I went to one for almost 4 years, it was one of the most pointless experiences I've ever had,
THANK GOD I didn't have to pay 700 monei a week, it was provided by the universal health care.
Still a waste of tax monei.

>>9482626
What about Skinner's behavior analysis?

>>9482622
Kuhn's scientific method actually isn't the one I follow. I've never read Worrall, but this actually doesn't seem too far from my position.

But, in debates over scientific methods, in my experience, people tend to side strongly with either Popper or Kuhn, so I figured it be efficient, in this case, to use a relatively well known scientific method.

Do you think psychologists violate some aspect of structural realism though? That was my initial question: which scientific method aren't psychologists following?

>>9482640
The problem with Kuhn is not the method but his epistemological and metaphysical premises viz. kantianism.

>>9482626
>I went to one for almost 4 years...
Therapists aren't scientists, so why would they follow the scientific method? Do you also complain about your pharmacist not following the scientific method?

>>9482647
If it was science you could apply it as well as make it.
Make stuff up is easy, applying it with success hard

>Why don't psychologists use the scientific method?
The scientific method is for scientists

>>9482398
kek you're locked out of anything defense related for the rest of your life

>>9482515
The problem arises at step 3. The human element has such an high uncertainty that you cannot draw anything more than macro macro trends upon said theory to test
After that is just a circle jerking where the name with most academic weight will support you and so on, so forth
Also you cannot use any previously discovered """"theory"""" to predict something new, since many of them are just ad-hoc, self contained.

>>9482398
Kek, I imagined you calling a imaginary friend and storming out of the place while hitting yourself on the head, which would confirm the diagnosis. But yes, psychologists who think they're medics should kill themselves. Let medicine to psychiatrists, your area is just conversation.

>>9482398
>someone with a glorified listener degree playing being a physician
Not cool

>>9482698
I thought psychology was a science.

>>9483021
Psychology is more like 50% art, 50% science. It's really not difficult to understand how or why this is the case.