/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm right

>>9649794
I dunno man, let's find out by making a survey, getting 20 responses from people all from one specific demographic, applying some high school statistics, and publishing the result in a journal

>>9649815
40 responses.

>>9649794
>Is he right?
Yes, because psychologists do not use the scientific method.

>>9649794
>>>/x/

>>9649815
that is pretty much the state of things

>>9649794
Regarding the current state of psychology, absolutely.

However, its not inherently a humanities subject.
Theoretically, Psychology is just applied biology is just applied chemestry is just applied physics, so there's a type of "objective psychology" that could one day exist.

Psychology /is/ a science insofar as it's possible to study and quantify what the human mind experiences... stating that psychology should fall under the humanities though is patently wrong, this anon sounds like a brainlet.

>>9649852
The notion of human mind isn't defined by constant observation; psychology isn't science.

>>9650772
That doesn't mean we can't study it scientifically. Science just means using the scientific method

>>9650777
You can't start a field based on subjective thoughts and use the scientific method on the concept you've defined with no observations; it only gives shit. If Psychology was really using the scientific method, it'd be able to study constant result and make prediction. As far as I know a psychologist wouldn't be able to predict anything that relates to his domain (ex: he wouldn't be able to predict the behaviour of an individual in function of the time even after using his shitty human mind concepts).

>>9649794
Yes because only 36%of studies replicates
(give the same result for the same experiment)

>>9649794
only 36% of psychology studies from the most reputable journals replicate/reproduce

>>9649794
Psychology is pseudo science

>>9649819
/sci/fags unironically believe this
tell me how operant conditioning isnt universally applicable for example

>>9650845
>tell me how operant conditioning isnt universally applicable for example
The burden of proof is on you.

>>9650852
>This
Way too many brainlets on this board. They don't know the basics of being rational.

>>9650852
do you play stupid video games? have you ever wondered yourself why?

>>9650854
operant conditioning is literally one of the most rational behaviour descriptions you could come up with
you can observe it literally in any human being and/or animal

>>9650870
>do you play stupid video games?
No.

>>9650872
((doubt))

>>9650819
Sigmund Fraud's theories are all bullshits which were proven wrong.

Less than 50% replication rate. Can you imagine? Lmao

psychology isn't a science for the same reason economics isn't a science

>>9650871
I was supporting the point that you were a brainlet for using the "prove me it doesn't" argument which is only used by retards... You are a retard.

>>9650891
>muh he used the wrong words to claim something therefore he is wrong argument

>>9650897
Again, I didn't say anything about any other argument you may have said, I just agree on the fact that it was stupid to use the "prove it doesn't" fake argument. Damn you are indeed a retard.

>>9650845
>my guess is universally applicable, prove me wrong!
the absolute state of psychology

>>9650957
>literally no arguments against the existence of operant conditioning
but there is no proof by induction for all organisms, therefore its false!!!

>>9650970
>literally no arguments for the existence of operant conditioning
but I believe in psychology, therefore its true!!!

>>9650981
>used in economics, computer science, animal training, company ethics and consumer tactics
>but its from the field of psychology reeeeee

>>9650984
>economics, computer science, animal training, company ethics and consumer tactics
Was this supposed to be an argument? None of these are sciences either

>>9650995
Top kek, you're destroying his little world

>>9650995
KEK.

>>9649829
IS THIS THE ABSOLUTE STATE?
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF /SCI/?
ABSOLUTE

>>9650995
>nothing except math is a science
the absolute state of /sci/fags

>>9650995
name some "real sciences" then

>>9651025
>>nothing except math is a science
Since when is math a science?

>>9651025
Physics, Chemistry and Biology are Sciences. But Economics, Computer "science", Social "Sciences" and "Animal training" aren't Sciences

>>9651025
KEK MATH IS A TOOL NOT SCIENCE!

>>9650995
>computer science isn't a science

>>9651045
Do you have any reason for mistakenly believing it's a science other than "computer science" being a misnomer? Jellyfish aren't fish

How is making a post of your own comment not bannable?

Sage & reported

>>9649794
>>9649801
samefag!

>>9651039
>physics
hurr what if this was true
>biology
hurr what if we try this and it works
>chemistry
see biology

see i can do this too

>>9651062
The difference is that
Physics is True by 99.99% of certainty.
While only 36% of Psychology studies from the most respected journals replicate.

>>9651062
>Retard anon
Muthematecu? neva herd of tht

>>9651081
>Physics is True by 99.99% of certainty.
kek

>>9651139
Unfortunately Biology don't replicate enough. Because they suck at math so are a bit retarded, unlike Physics.

>>9651139
But Since most psychologists are even more math retarded than bio fags Psychology isn't reliable.

No. Social science and psychology follow the scientific method whether you like it or not. The main thing that separates them from "the hard sciences" is the sampling error. We only have 1 version of each society to study. For example, if you're looking at crime or something in the US, we don't have an exact replica of the US with exactly the same history, context and conditions that we use as a control group as we change variables. This is true with humans as well in psychology. There's also many obvious ethical quandaries.

So instead, the humanities must rely on case studies and more qualitative data. They do follow science as far as they can, and use things like system studies and game theory. Put it this way: if a physicist was to look at social science and try to reform to follow the scientific method as closely as possible, he wouldn't be able to change it significantly.

>>9651153
"Sciences" with large amounts of error are pseudoscience.

>>9651165
literally every science started out with large amounts of error
also
>shifting the goalposts each time psychology shifts the criteria of a scientific field

>>9649794
Behavior Analysis, Psychophysics and Psychometrics are OK.

>>9651165
I guess it's time to invent the equivalent of black matter (which explains all errors) for psychology. Any suggestions for the name?

>>9651179
Niggers

This makes 3 assumptions

1. psychology has nothing to teach us
2. psychology cannot benefit from the scientific method
3. psychology cannot improve itself

All of these assumptions are wrong

>>9651179
>I guess it's time to invent the equivalent of black matter (which explains all errors) for psychology. Any suggestions for the name?

>>9651181
>Niggers

Kek

>>9651165
They're not if they folow the scientific method. And do you want them to do? Just say "ah well, we can't know nuffin' about society lads, pack it in. Observing society and seeing if you can understand what makes it tick is fundamentally impossible." That right there is unscientific. And this attitude pervades the old guard (not such much younger people aside from fedorafags) and really reveals how fucking dumb they are outside of physics.

You've got Thunderf00t, who thinks society has absolutely no influence on social interactionsm which is obviously bullshit, Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who've fallen down the alt-right rabbit-hole of racial science and parroting literal neo-nazi propaganda like "cultural-marxism", and what do all these "rationalists" worship? Fucking evolutionary psychology, quite possible the most unfalsifiable, un-scientific idea ever. Talk about sampling error with societies, here they one with entire fucking species.

What has really happened is that they clearly the smart and educated ones when the debating creationists, but now they've turned on humanities its quite clear they don't know anything about it and now they're not the educated ones so they're throwing tantrums left right and center and accusing their opponents of conspiracy theories and misrepresenting them so they can create a strawman that is easier to debate.

>>9651190
>Sam Harris
>fallen down the alt-right rabbit-hole of racial science and parroting literal neo-nazi propaganda like "cultural-marxism"
[citation needed]

>>9651181
Its funny because this is literally what they did lol.

>>9651195
>People don’t want to hear that a person's intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Here, he's talking about The Bell Curve and using it as a source, even The Bell Curve was panned by scientists for its numerous methodological flaws and obvious bias. There's no evidence for this "50-80%" crap he touts ("50-80%", very specific there Harris) effecting IQ and most people don't even recognize IQ as the only factor in intelligence anymore, rather that there are many types and factors within intelligence. That to me, looks like falling down the racial science rabbit hole. And I'm not denying population can have an effect on intelligence, but that's population genetics and neurology, not "racial science". And Charles Murray isn't either of them, he's a fucking political scientist.

>>9651190
>What has really happened is that they clearly the smart and educated ones when the debating creationists
Including liberal creationists like you.

>humanities
Aka Geisteswissenschaften. >>>/x/.

>>9651212
What the fuck is a "liberal creationist"?

>>9651212
Germans can call it whatever they want, I'm not German.

>>9651216
What the fuck is a "liberal creationist"?

Blank slate theory advocates. It also includes the view that human evolution somehow stopped 50000 years ago and human races (or subspecies whatever you call it) do not exist.

>>9651227
>blank slate
vs
>genes are everything
its almost like theres no middle ground, retards

>>9651216
>What the fuck is a "liberal creationist"?
What are you, retarded? Do you not know how to approach God progressively?

That's what this whole movement is about. Destroying race discrimination, but reminding us that races are different.

Destroying the tight confines of Republican and Democratic parties, and reminding everyone that God is real.

That technology and a well-managed economy will lead us all to success.

It's a complex, defined plan. But you can feel it.

>>9651204
Everything you said is the exact opposite of the truth, lmao.

The 80% figure isn't even from the bell curve but from countless studies. The Bell Curve was panned not because of methodological failures but because people thought it was "ray ray". IQ deniers are literally unscientific sociologists and the theory of multiple intelligence is actually completely unscientific and discredited.

In short, kys.

>>9651231
The middle ground being proven to be 80% genetics.

>>9651250
>grow up in american redneck family
>no educayshun
>no morals
>sister fucking everywhere
he's a genius, trust me!

>>9651227
What you mean, Tabula Rasa, the modern incarnation of the theory proposed by John Locke that Sam Harris and Sargon of Akkad peddle that modern social science rejects which is why they often clash with feminists and other "SJWs"? Modern science doesn't agree with Tabula Rasa you penis, just that there's social conditions as well. They're social scientists, its not their fucking job to examine biology, its the biologists and the geneticist's job. Neither of them conflict with each other. the only people they do conflict with are people with ulterior political motives who want to use science to argue for absolute gender and racial essentialism, which both social science and biology completely reject.

>>9651254
I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Low IQ post.

>>9651256
But claiming that 80% of IQ is heritable and that there exists an IQ gap between american whites and blacks equal to a std is not "biological essentialism". It's just science.

>>9651258
if superior genes were 80% of importance we wouldnt need education faggot since most of the people who are smart are smart by nature

>>9651266
Intelligence and education aren't the same. Look up the definition you brainlet.

>>9651256
>racial essentialism

Nobody is defending race essentialism or species essentialism. Essentialism in biology is dead since Darwin.

>>9651266
Well sure you need education you fucking moron. IQ is just brainpower, hardware if you will. To make good use of it you need to install software. Higher IQ people will be able to run more demanding software.

There's some very smart people (read: high genetic IQ) who don't make it far in life because of lack of education.

>>9651232
>That's what this whole movement is about

What movement. "Liberal creationist"? What you mean like Sargon and Thunderf00t (although Thunderf00t switches whenever its convenient for him)? Because social theory doesn't advocate Tabula Rasa, it just denies gender and racial essentialism because that's what biologists also do.

.

>>9651277
Biologists deny all essentialism, not just race essentialism.

>>9651277
>Because social theory doesn't advocate Tabula Rasa,
It usually does. At most it concedes that "there exists innate differences" but then immediately backpeddles to "but they are minimal and can be solved through education!"

>>9651277
How do you explain the leftist resistance on Sociobiology in the 70s and 80s?

>>9651277
>social theory

There is no social "theory". It's all gobbledygook, raw data and a free floating hypothesis.

>>9651265
Because Sam Harris was wrong in the context he used it. And I can tell you right now that he's right, its not 50, its 80% of intelligence that's inherited. But where the misrepresentation comes into play, and honestly, the fucking racism, is that the paper that concludes this had NOTHING to do with race. Its was talking about humans as a whole.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
Its talking about to what extent the human species cognition is inheritable, which is the baseline intelligence we have. This involves all humans, presumably from the start of behavioral modernity. Its not talking about IQ or the minor gaps in most peoples intelligence. Its simply saying that among humans, 80% of our intelligence in inherited, which leaves a lot of fucking room in that 20% for social factors. It doesn't prove anything about race or individual differences and Sam Harris is being a fucking liability when he presents it like that.

>>9651307
Okay but you're not a low IQ moron you can put 2 and 2 together.
>IQ is 80% heritable among humans
>There exists long lasting and stable IQ gaps between the races
>Therefore these gaps are most likely genetic
I know you're never supposed to say that 3rd point because we won't technically have proof for it until a few more years (when the genes responsible for intelligence are identified) but it's not an unreasonable conclusion. The contrary conclusion (the gap is environmental!) is hard to believe given the first two points.

>>9651320
It's useless to argue with brainwashed SJWs.

>>9651288
It doesn't. It just doesn't get into because its SOCIAL science, not BIOLOGICAL science. And IQ uses psychology anyway, so what's the issue with social science then?

>>9651293
Because it became clear that race that had no basis in scientific reality. Fucking raceial theory invented way before genetics, how did they know what how humans could be grouped? They didn't, they just looked at people said "well, he looks a bit different, he's a nigger". No thought was given to what actually going on. Also, race is steeped in politics, whatever race people are usually changed to suit to whichever group was being vilified at the time. Its not science.

>>9651320
>IQ is 80% heritable among humans
Yes.
>There exists long lasting and stable IQ gaps between the races
No.
>Therefore these gaps are most likely genetic
No.
This is science, not formal logic, and you're even wrong about that. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying:
>the climate is changing
>climate is empirically influenced by the sun
>therefore climate change is due to the sun

First, IQ gaps between races are circular arguments because they're completely assuming the IQ gap will be because of genetics, then saying that this proves the IQ gap is genetic. They ignore that the IQ gap could be social. Which they almost certainly are because have a sampling error. You're looking at things as they are right now. Had you gone back to 1700 and tested the average working class British person vs the average aristocrat, you gap in IQ would have been enormous. Could you therefore conclude the working class are inherently retarded compared to the upper classes? No. Racial theorists like to do this with East Asains as well, completely ignoring that education of your parents is a massive predictor of success in life and IQ, and that the US banned chinese immigrants until around the 60's, and even then they had to be rich to move. So it was the parents of educated Chinese people who were moving to the US.

>>9651324
>brainwashed sjws
>yet every single "alt-centrist" and right-winger parrots the exact same crap, the exact same conspiracy theories, the exact same media sources (usually the Daily Mail or Breitbart), literally encourage people not to read diverse media outlets because anything that doesn't agree with them is "fake", irrationally attack the other (SJWs) without understanding their position, have their dogmas and are viciously attacked if they try understand things for someone elses point of view (cuck, soyboy!)

>>9651343
SOCIAL science,

Human societies are biological systems.

>>9651343
>And IQ uses psychology

A discipline that studies the behavior of organisms (like ethology).

>>9651355
I don't see anything you've said contradicts social science as a concept.

>>9651360
And like Sociology and every other social science.

>>9651274
how do you faggots then explain why iq consistently went up higher and higher in two fucking generations?

>>9651343
>It doesn't. It just doesn't get into because its SOCIAL science, not BIOLOGICAL science
This is retarded. Imagine if a physicist was studying a phenomenon that suddenly crossed into chemistry and said "nope, this is where I stop. I cannot exceed my boundaries".

>Because it became clear that race that had no basis in scientific reality.
The 60s called, they want their fake marxist pseudo science back.

>No
Show me a single IQ study with representative samples in america where the black/white IQ gap is not a standard deviation.

>This is science, not formal logic,
Right, as we all know science should be about feeling and not outdated white supremacist concepts like logic.

>They ignore that the IQ gap could be social
They don't, that's why they usually control for environment in IQ studies, fucktard .

Kys.

>>9651343
All social "science" outside of biology is pure mysticism/spiritualism and should not be taken seriously. It's not different from the New Age crap.

>>9651382
For the same reason people got taller. Better nutrition.

Also IQ gains on the flynn effect are not very g loaded.

>>9651389
or maybe it was muh 80% genetics hurr durr
humans are inherently social species you faggots. there are wolf people, how intelligent do you think they are?

>>9651398
Low IQ post.
>hurr durr but if you give brain damage to your child then he won't be smart ergo IQ is a social construct hurr durr
The absolute state of IQ deniers.

>>9651383
>Imagine if a physicist was studying a phenomenon that suddenly crossed into chemistry and said "nope, this is where I stop. I cannot exceed my boundaries".
No, more like imagine is a physicist started going into organic chemistry and stopped doing any physics. Of course there is biology, and social science keeps that in mind. For example, the sociological theory of sex is the same one as biology, that sex is based on gametes. The sociological theory of gender is the same as the biological one, that gender is based on brain structure and hormones. They look take that scientific theory and examine how its effects society and relationships. This is another thing Thunderf00t says "oh feminist deny sexual dimoprhism" no they don't. They deny the extent to which Thunderf00t just says that any current difference between the sexes in society is inherently based on sex and that things can't and don't change.

>The 60s called, they want their fake marxist pseudo science back.
Well go and take it up with the biologists, not me. Sociology still uses race because it still plays a role in society because it can be used for historical context. Its the biologists that decided human groups are a bit more complicated than "aryan, nigger, chink and abbo".

>Show me a single IQ study with representative samples in america where the black/white IQ gap is not a standard deviation.
I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the idea that the IQ gaps were completely caused by inheritance. Please explain how British white children perform worse than every other ethnic group in IQ except Afro-Carribeans, yet as a whole white British children have a higher IQ than the children of the countries many of these ethnic groups come from, such as the middle-east?

>Right, as we all know science should be about feeling and not outdated white supremacist concepts like logic.
No, it shouldn't be based on making random axioms and then just assuming more axioms with no empirical study.

>>9651437
>post criticising psychology but praising iq
>iq was created by psychologist
kek

>>9651454
Where did I criticize psychology?>>9651438
>I'm not disputing that
Well then, case closed.

> I'm disputing the idea that the IQ gaps were completely caused by inheritance
That's just your personal feelings. Not science.

Also, ever heard of selective migration?

>>9651490
>psychology says society is very important for human development, more so than genetics
>"nuh uh"
>"i dont criticize psychology"
genetics research literally supports the opposite of your statement

>>9651500
>psychology says society is very important for human development, more so than genetics
Actually psychology states that IQ is 80% genetics.

>>9651511
[citation needed]

>>9651521
Literally every scientific study conducted on adult IQ.

This is like arguing with a flat earther...

>>9649794
it’s not humanities either because humanities can be interesting sometimes

>>9651348
get a load of this fucking soyboy

>>9650879
>the mind is one unifirs whole
O.K.

>>9650879
>the mind is one unified whole
O.K.

>>9651025
CS is math.
>>9651039
Biology is as scientific as Psychology.
>>9651147
Because it's difficult to control variables.
Same as Psychology.
>>9651382
Common answers are "weren't malnourished in youth" and "used to standardized tests"

>>9651918
>CS is math.
Other way around.

>>9651045
It's a subset of math, applied to the magical transistor.

>>9651935
Transistors are purely theoretical. CompSci might as well be philosophy.

>>9649794

In theory, yes. But it seems the consensus here is that in practice, it isn't.

>>9652080

A science, that is.