/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10326292]

Is Psychology a pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.10326322]

>>10326292
If it is then so is math

If you add child abuse and same school experience and environment = gay

If you add child abuse and different environment = tranny

If you add child abused and another kind of different = straight

It’s exactly like my math but we aren’t as educated or advanced in it

[Anonymous No.10326335]

>>10326322
>"child abuse plus some kinda environment equals fag/tranny" is the same as "1+1=2"

[Anonymous No.10326344]

>>10326292
Do you know about scientific method and statistical inference? It's pretty pointless to talk to a troll, but doubly so if he is uneducated.

[Anonymous No.10326361]

>>10326344
>Everyone I disagree with is a troll

[Anonymous No.10326373]

>>10326361
It is not a discussion topic for anyone who has knowledge about the two topics I mentioned. No matter which of the most widely used definitions of science and pseudoscience you choose, psychology is not pseudoscience. And I am a physicist (not anything fancy like CERN, just quantum optics and quantum field theory), so I am biased and regard natural sciences as being far more important and complicated than, say, sociology/economics/psychology.

Go to Google Scholar. Search for recent psychology articles. You might not understand the subject, but you may understand the methodology (I assume you know inferential statistics as my question was left unanswered). And judge for yourself. Don't trust me, don't trust Wikipedia, don't trust other anons. Read a couple of articles for yourself and judge accordingly. Now, if you don't know statistics at a level to understand them (which is likely), that's another matter.

Obviously all fields - from maths and physics to psychology - have lunatics and charlatans. Likely psychology has more of them as the entrance barrier is lower. This does not have any implications for the status of the field, however.

[Anonymous No.10326416]

>>10326335
let me molest your child to prove this thesis

[Anonymous No.10326478]

>>10326292
If psychology is a pseudoscience then so are IQ tests, and so are racial differences in intelligence etc etc.

You gotta decide /sci/. You can't have both

[Anonymous No.10326492]

>>10326478
False dichotomy, see above.

[Anonymous No.10326501]

Freud was a fraud. His thinking was so influential and so wrong that the field has still to rebound completely.

[Anonymous No.10326555]

>>10326344
The threshold for statistical significance is significantly lower in psychology than in hard science. At best loose trends can be found but a lot of psychology assumes too much

[Anonymous No.10326621]

>>10326555
Do you know statistics beyond p-values? Recent studies routinely use point estimates of effect sizes and even Bayes factors. And I hope you know about meta-analysis. Just a cursory search over recent papers reveals that fuckton of research is reevaluated using more modern statistical techniques. Not mentioning that the major psychological effects that have made it to textbooks have been reproduced numerous times with p<0.001 which usually corresponds to a Bayes factor of 100 or higher.
But no, you will proceed to claim that "at best loose trends.." can be found. If you don't know math, you go and read some math instead of reveling in ignorance.

P-hacking exists in all fields, it's nothing new. You have a bias against psychology and you think quickly googling "significance" will be sufficient for this discussion? Mate, I am more than equipped mathematically to continue this discussion.

[Anonymous No.10326648]

Psychology being a pseudoscience is debatable but psychoanalysis definitely is. Even worse, it's often a self aware scam, they know their stuff is bs but still charge for it

[Anonymous No.10326664]

>>10326648
I agree on psychoanalysis, but the first claim is only debatable if you don't know the math and get your knowledge on inference from google.

[Anonymous No.10326677]

>>10326292
Nope.

[Anonymous No.10326690]

>>10326292
I dont know if I consider psychology to be science, but I dont think it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10326696]

>>10326322
Math isn't a science.

[Anonymous No.10326703]

>>10326292
Yes, because it is unable to repeat results properly. There are worse things. Like the bro-science of psychiatry.

>>10326478
For IQ you are correct. For race you are not correct since that is biology, not psychology. You've given a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.10326776]

>>10326664
I mean, "science" isn't a clear-cut category, it's more of a spectrum and weather something is scientific or pseudo-scientific isn't a scientific question itself. Is biology as scientific as physics? Does it belong to the same category? It certainly isn't as rigorous and it's much more descriptive, so even this is debatable. Similarly, you could argue psychology, studied as rigorously as possible could belong to the scientific spectrum as well, though at the end of the day, being an epistemological question this is all open to interpretation

[Anonymous No.10326783]

>>10326776
So, in addition to not knowing statistics (neither traditional inference nor Bayesian) and psychology you also lack knowledge in the methodology of science and philosophy of science? What is your specialization if I, as a physicist, know more in each of those areas?

[Anonymous No.10326785]

>>10326703
>Yes, because it is unable to repeat results properly.
If every science becomes a pseudoscience because replication issues then hard sciences are pseudosciences too.
Chemistry has an ugly replication problem, but somehow, psychology gets all the bad rap.

[Anonymous No.10326801]

>>10326292
No but it can have pseudo-scientific practices. The issue with psychology is that philosophy comes into it in a more obvious way than it does for mathematics or physics. For example, Lenin and Stalin believed that the human mind is simply a reflection of the material world, its the material that makes the person rather than the the person making the material and humans develop dialectically, with the environment going in, them giving back and the environment being changed but going back into and so people develop materially with no input from some "higher consciousness" or spirituality.

Freud likewise was a materialist, although engaged in metaphysics and was an idealist. Freud and Lenin frequently argued about psychology.

Its not they were being "unscientific", its that psychology is qualitatively different from physics or maths and requires a different approach.

[Anonymous No.10326813]

>>10326322
thats not addition and math is not a science

[Anonymous No.10326814]

>>10326783
What statistics are you rambling about you mumbling retard? I never mentioned statistics so you might be mistaking me for another poster. You also seem to feel the need to stress that mathematics are used in psychology for some reason, as if I've denied this, without it being relevant to anything I posted, and even getting defensive about it. Read your own posts again and try not to be a retard this time

[Anonymous No.10326830]

>>10326292
Yes. You can't study how people react and take it as if it was a science withouth analysing how the brain works. And 99,99% psychology doesn't, although most phychiatry does.
Most phichology is aristotelic/astrologic bullshit-
sorry for my english

[Anonymous No.10326837]

>>10326478
>If psychology is a pseudoscience then so are IQ tests, and so are racial differences in intelligence etc etc.
yes, but so is saying we all have the same intelligence. THat something is obviously true to us doesnt mean it is scientiffically proven (in the causes not as a statisctic, wich already is).

[Anonymous No.10326839]

>>10326292
The value of psychology depends on who purses it
If you are a diligent, honest, serious, smart man, you will produce a good psychology related academic results.
If you lack any of the four mentioned qualities, you are a cancer on this planet

[Anonymous No.10326844]

>>10326292
Yes
>>10326322
Math is an art, faggot. No mathematician who is vaguely aware of what they’re doing thinks they’re a scientist, they don’t need to be.
>>10326373
doesn’t replicate, no agreement on theory, studies incaccessible non-physical structures, abuses neuroscience and behavioral biology to get away with pushing nonsense models of thinking, philosophically unrigorous, loaded with folk wisdom/mythological thinking about language, sociality and phenomenology. Fake and gay from the very first.
>>10326478
IQ replicates and has neurobiological and genetic correlates, IQ is a heurisic for finding g which is soon going to be located to a specific set of biological structures, far different from most of cog psyche and soc psyche.