[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 27 KB, 408x660, tZlQSEV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10415043 No.10415043 [Reply] [Original]

you can apply the scientific method to everything in the phenomenal world

prove me wrong, explain why economics, sociology, psychology are not sciences

>> No.10415048

Isn't this the whole idea of empiricism?

>> No.10415053

>>10415043
IQ and psychology are non-reproducible and therefore pseudoscience

>> No.10415055
File: 310 KB, 427x576, pepe chess.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10415055

>>10415043
>you can apply the scientific method to everything in the phenomenal world
Do a double-blind experiment on prayer. The entity being prayed to needs not know if the prayer is placebo or not.

>> No.10415057

>>10415043
>the scientific method
Doesn't exists.

>> No.10415063

>>10415043
>prove me wrong, explain why economics, sociology, psychology are not sciences
Because economists, sociologists and psychologists do not use the scientific method.

>> No.10415070

>>10415043
You cant with the domain of experience/consciousness itself.

>> No.10415085

>>10415053
point me to a single paper by a psychologist that isnt reproducible.
>>10415057
nope sorry
>>10415063
but they do, thats how they study and develop theories
>>10415070
correct, which is what i was trying to explain in the op

>> No.10415097

>>10415085
Are you saying experiences and consciousness are not phenomenons?

>> No.10415101

>>10415097
basically we can study relations between phenomenon, but not phenomenon themselves

>> No.10415118

>>10415101
But what if all there is are the relations and the so called "phenomenas" don't non-existent beyond perceptual illusions?

Take the example of a "car." Beyond the wheels, metal cover, seats inside, metal struts, gas, engine, oil, and so on, where is the phenomena called the "car"? Might it simply be perceptual illusions? And this applies to every phenomena we experience.

>> No.10415123

>>10415118
Perceptual illusions all the way down/up.

>> No.10415130

>>10415085
>point me to a single paper by a psychologist that isnt reproducible.
pick two psychology papers at random. one should be non-reproducible.

>> No.10415149

>>10415130
should be easy then, im waiting

>> No.10415152

>>10415043
If that's true why don't I have a gf then?

>> No.10415156

>>10415149
>should be easy then, im waiting
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/584/baumeisteretal1998.pdf

>> No.10415168
File: 68 KB, 344x255, 1550814796422.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10415168

>>10415043
You are wrong because there is no other world than the noumenal world. Time does not exist, it is abstracted relative movement. Like you picturing a jump over a puddle. This world is an illusory probability field. Everything that happens is a predetermined simulation. You are too naive and ignorant to realize things that would utterly shatter your shallow NPC programming, and that is for the best. Science is a metaphysical logic system. We have so many kinds of science because most of what we make up is based on an erroneous worldview.

>> No.10415175

>>10415156
hahahahahahahah my dude theres a whole section explaining it

>> No.10415189

>>10415175
>hahahahahahahah my dude theres a whole section explaining it
Explaining what?

>> No.10415193

>>10415189
the fucking method of experiment, did you read the paper?

>> No.10415197

>>10415193
>the fucking method of experiment, did you read the paper?
Why does explaining a method of experiment mean the paper is reproducible?

>> No.10415208

>>10415043
The reasons, why most experiments in psychology are not reducible is not because the subject is unscientific,
but because most experiments nowadays have such a poor work and observation setting that reproducing them is nearly impossible.

Or to put it in other words. Filling out surveys yields at best mediocre results because people consciously and unconsciously fake and change their answers.

>> No.10415221

>>10415197
it has potential to be replicated, but just because someone hasnt done it dosent mean the scientific method has failed

>> No.10415225

>>10415221
>it has potential to be replicated, but just because someone hasnt done it dosent mean the scientific method has failed
But it has been attempted, and it wasn't reproduced. Why else would I link it?

>> No.10415235

>>10415225
I dont think you know what Reproducibility is

>> No.10415242

>>10415235
>I dont think you know what Reproducibility is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
>Reproducibility is the closeness of the agreement between the results of measurements of the same measurand carried out with same methodology described in the corresponding scientific evidence (e.g. a publication in a peer-reviewed journal)

>> No.10415276

>>10415235
Here's another unreproducible paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20855902

>> No.10415310

>>10415043
I can't exactly perfectly simulate thousands of societies to prove a theory. Ask me in 50 years.

>> No.10415321

>>10415053
IQ is the only thing in psychology that is reproducible actually

>> No.10416187

>>10415043
There's pseudoscience on sale in every branch, some more than others. It depends on how close the subject is to competing aims, interested parties, and pleasant illusions, how difficult it is to practice detachment, to temporarily set aside the ego, and put off indulging in fantasy, while we think a matter through. Introspection is essential to the scientific outlook since the more aware you are of your own subjectivity, the more objective your weighing of the evidence will be. This goes for anything with political implications as well. By temperament, I lean left, and it is for that reason I must be especially on alert for confirmation bias in journalism & commentary in publications that lean left. Intellect itself isn't political, though in advocating our own interests in a democratic society we make ourselves susceptible to believing our own advertising, even if we're basically forthcoming with friends, and have a talent for friendship. This is the reason that art is one of the means of science, literary art most particularly. Tempting as it is to suppose that achievement in a subject remote from daily concerns & disruptive controversies as theoretical physics, is irrelevant to roundedness in what was once called a classical education, that too is an illusion. And, depending one's state of mind when it comes to the uses of persuasion, it can also be a dogma. These days, it is a depressingly common one.

>> No.10416195

>>10415276
Is that saying if I pose twice a day (physically), I'll subconsciously become more powerful?