/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1660467]

I never understood why Psych students get so much shit from everyone, I did applied maths, physics and chemistry fine. But with Psych there is so much information to remember, it's daunting to think this will all be on a test with only 40 something questions.

My question is, why do you hold the hard sciences (Physics, Chem, Eng,...) in a higher regard to psych?

[Anonymous No.1660473]

>Eng

lol wut<

[Anonymous No.1660478]

Psychology fails falsifiability tests. It is not a good Popperian (pure) science.

[Anonymous No.1660483]

engineering? wtf? not a hard science

and its because everything in the social sciences is subject to change,very small changes in the subjects that support them,such as biology or nuerosciences,can have massive model altering effects in the social sciences,untill there is a firm grounding in the physical nuerosciences,nothing above it with ever be particularly reliable,no matter how good the approximation is for the time being,plus in trying to apply the ideas,you get fucking nowhere

[Electrical Engineer No.1660494]

>>1660483
>>1660473
ITT: Highschool retards who feel better by claiming that engineering is easy.

[Anonymous No.1660502]

>>1660483
Implying Psychologists use neuroscience and biology.

[Anonymous No.1660511]

>>1660502

i was merely stating the reason it sucks as a science is because it DOESNT use physical sciences to justify its claims.

>>1660494

i meant hard as in pure,not hard as in opposite to easy,engineering is fucking solid as far as i can see,way more principles too learn than most other sciences

[Anonymous No.1660533]

>>1660478
fuck popper, read quine and lrn2naturalism

[Anonymous No.1660545]

>>1660478
I have to agree, after doing Psych for about a month and a half now, I can see how flimsy it can be. With all the theories that come up its hard to disprove a lot of them and than it become more popular, even if it isn't right.

And a good example is that there's seven different schools of psych, all for trying to explain the same thing. It's just silly when you think about it, these are all completely different ideas of thought and yet they are all used together.

[Anonymous No.1660546]

>>1660483
The same can be said for physics and quantum mechanics. One level of complexity above the other does not mean that those levels can't be studied separately and integrated as knowledge acquisition progresses.
>>1660502
>implying they don't
As a neuroscientist, I can verify that they do. There's a difference between clinical and research psychology you know. The latter is a science and while former is not.

[Anonymous No.1660548]

>>1660545
Yea the grammar is all munted in that i know, but that's what psych has done to me. It's just made me confused and tired.

[Anonymous No.1660549]

>>1660533
naturalism is for fools

[Anonymous No.1660558]

>>1660545

Psych works in mysterious ways...at first there are contradicting extreme positions...then suddenly COMPROMISE! and everyone has a true.

[Anonymous No.1660556]

>>1660545
>after doing Psych for about a month and a half now
That's your problem right there... You shouldn't judge a field after such a short period of time.

[Anonymous No.1660559]

>>1660556
how long would you give it?

6 months? a year?

[Anonymous No.1660568]

>>1660549
ad hominems are for faggots

[Anonymous No.1660571]

>>1660558
Exactly. It's like saying

'Oh well I believe an atom has protons on the outside'

'Well I believe that the electrons are inside the neutrons'

'Well I believe the atom is actually a miniature candy bar that has lollies orbiting around it'

'Well since we can't see the atom, we will agree to disagree and we are all right'

'HUZZAH!'

[Anonymous No.1660574]

>>1660559
You can only truly judge a field after you've become part of the field itself. So get a degree first, and than you have the right to complain.

If you don't like the field, well that's something different. You can always quit if you don't like it but you should withhold criticism until you actually do know something about it.

[Anonymous No.1660577]

>>1660571
>'Well since we can't see the atom, we will agree to disagree and we are all right'
>I don't know how psychological research works
The fact that some psychological research is done without directly measuring brain activity doesn't mean that deduction about brain activity is impossible. There are behavioral tasks for that sort of thing...

[Anonymous No.1660579]

>>1660574
I don't have a qualification in judiciary to judge that you are a pretentious fag

[Anonymous No.1660580]

>>1660574
Is it unreasonable to criticize a liberal arts degree having never completed one?

[Anonymous No.1660586]

>>1660577
also shitload of reasearch is done with fMRI etc.

[Anonymous No.1660589]

>>1660579
Great debating skills my friend.
>>1660580
Yes.

[Anonymous No.1660596]

>>1660586
I know. That would be considered neuroscientific research though (I admit, this is where the fields meet so it's kind of an intermittent gray area). My point was that neuroscience and psychology complement each other. We can deduce things about brain function from research done without directly measuring it.

[Anonymous No.1660594]

>>1660580

Ive completed one,and they are full of shit,my dads an art and graphics lecturer and even he knows they are full of shit,pays the bills for him though

[Anonymous No.1660595]

>>1660577
well seeing as two completely different schools of psych, can do the same test on people, and get completely different answers, tells me that behavioral tasks might not be the saving grace you think it is to this argument

[Anonymous No.1660600]

>>1660579
*two thumbs up*

[Anonymous No.1660602]

>>1660595
Please give examples with a statement like that.

[Anonymous No.1660639]

>>1660602
The humanistic and cognitive test of why your friends think your a cock bag is a perfect example

[Anonymous No.1660647]

>>1660639
>18 minutes
>worlds shittest reply
time well spent

[Anonymous No.1660659]

>>1660639
Oh wow. It really took you THIS long to come up with that half-assed reply? Nice way to concede the argument fucktard.

[Anonymous No.1660662]

>>1660647
>he assumes i sit around waiting for his replies, and that I wasn't off doing something else for 17 minutes

I dont even know you and I think your a cock bag, checkmate sir.

[Anonymous No.1660668]

>>1660659
your welcome to pick up the argument where i left off.. thats one of the wonders of being anonymous

[Anonymous No.1660669]

>>1660596
The bullshit theories of psychologists are often found to be false by neuroscience but the theories are not rejected. That is why Psychology is given low status by real scientists.

[Anonymous No.1660671]

ITT: people pretendning that they know something, because they repeat what they read here

[Anonymous No.1660673]

Psych isn't hard... telephone books are hard, have you tried memorizing them?

[Anonymous No.1660694]

>>1660568
I see what you did there.

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1660698]

introspective psychology is without basis. it may be right sometimes, but only by accident.

idk what's going on with modern psychology though, so can't judge that.

[Anonymous No.1660700]

[Anonymous No.1660702]

Well I just think that there are many people that I know who are majoring in psychology that seem like idiots

[Anonymous No.1660715]

>>1660702

The U2 spy plane can reach a higher altitude than Spaceship One and Spaceship Two.

I just wanted you to know this.

[Anonymous No.1660718]

>>1660467

Psychologyfag here, psychology is shit. . Well not entirely but it does suck.

So the problem with psychology is that it started before neuroscience. The models for behavior were shit because of this. They make and stick with metaphysical models despite budding physical evidence.

Eh, its getting better though.

tldr: Explain behavior without knowing how the brain works and you get Psychology.

[Anonymous No.1660723]

>>1660718
Not really, because so far neurology tells us nearly nothing about psychology.

Imagine if we had no first-had experience of consciousness, and had to derive psychology from neurology. We would even deduct that consciousness existed, much less its properties.

[Anonymous No.1660727]

>>1660715
>Spaceship one
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_one
>112 km

>U-2
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>operational ceiling of 70,000 feet (21,000 m),
>21 km

You best be trollin'.

[Anonymous No.1660789]

if you think psych requires a lot of memorization perhaps you should take organic chem or biochem

[Anonymous No.1660860]

>>1660467

very few psych theories are actually empirical, a lot are based on rational assumptions which turn out to be mistaken

psych has a huge problem of going from the particular to the general since so many parameters and hidden conditions exist when it comes to the human mind

psych doesn't really discover laws of the mind or laws of nature, it isn't rigorous enough and humans are too unpredictable

a lot of psych is still infected with psychoanalysis, a rationalisitic attempt to figure out the mind from an arm-chair

a lot of psych is qualitative dealing with unmeasurable aspects of the mind, which makes it into a soft social science

psych doesn't really help anyone, when it comes to mental problems you need hardcore neuroscience or biopsych, psych by itself is pretty weak

hard sciences not only have better empirical records and quantitative analysis but they actually PRODUCE valuable theories which can be engineered into valuable objects....psych is pretty shit in this regard, it fails to produce valuable things

so overall, psych lacks strong empiricism, lacks the ability to discover laws of nature or laws of the mind, it's theories can't produce any valuable things and in terms of social change no one really gives a shit, overall it's interesting but also quite irrelevant

[Anonymous No.1662773]

>>1660860
>overall it's interesting but also quite irrelevant

you just summed up everything about it into that tiny little sentance. Bravo sir, bravo.

[Anonymous No.1662826]

>>1660860
overall it's interesting but also quite irrelevant

Funnily enough, that was almost the exact thing someone said to me when I tried to describe my psych course at a party.

[Anonymous No.1663126]

I enjoyed quite alot in my Psychology class, Op, what are you talking about? It's a class - that means there will always be those who hate it and those who like it.

I learned why people talk shit about other people - it's definately an eye opener to me.

[Anonymous No.1663131]

PSYCH IS AS MUCH A SCIENCE AS NUMEROLOGY IS MATHEMATICS