/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2269685]

What are sci's views on both psychology and neuroscience as
-Sciences
-Careers/importance to society
-Current and future relevance to society

I'm not good enough for big boy science but I want a career that pays a lot, is secure and has potential to help people. I'd likely work clinically.

[Anonymous No.2269711]

bump

[Anonymous No.2269857]

>>2269685
Six year olds have a better understanding of psychology than most psychologists do it isn't science.

[Anonymous No.2270967]

bump

[Anonymous No.2270976]

>>2269857
>derp

[Anonymous No.2270978]

>>2269857
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2270997]

Neuroscience is awesome (I'm a neuroscientist). Experimental psychology is necessary for the quantification of behavior. Both fields are integrated into cognitive neuroscience and contribute to our understanding of the mind and the brain.

Both are sciences. Career options differ though, with a psychology degree you could become a clinical psychologists (clinician) and an experimental psychologist (scientist). Neuroscience is somewhat restricted and most people that study it go on to doing research as neurology is done by people done with an MD. You won't be able to treat people with a PhD.
>>2269857
Actually, it is.

[Anonymous No.2271001]

>>2269685
neuroscience = groovy.
psychiatry = awesome.
psychology = useless faggotry.
that is my opinion

[Anonymous No.2271019]

>>2271001
>Implying psychologists don't help people

[Anonymous No.2271025]

Psychology is not a fucking science.

[Anonymous No.2271029]

>>2269685
SFW board, please delete the thread.

[Anonymous No.2271030]

>>2271019
>>implying
>implying that you're a complete moron by using that incredibly obnoxious >implying meme

[Anonymous No.2271031]

>>2271025
Yes, it is. That is, research psychology is.

[Anonymous No.2271032]

>>2269685
Whether or not psychology is a science or not is heavily debateable, no point in trying on /sci/, but it DOES help people and is important. It also pays well.

[Anonymous No.2271037]

>>2271030
>Implying that it has anything to do with the relevance of my point
>trollface or some other gay shit.jpg

[Anonymous No.2271038]

>>2271032
>Whether or not psychology is a science or not is heavily debateable
It's not debated within the academic community though. It is a science because it uses the scientific method. Period.

[Anonymous No.2271043]

>>2271037
>implying that i care about your so called "point"

[Anonymous No.2271048]

>>2271043
What a great and unbiased attitude to have. Now if only you have a trip so I could block your posts.

[Anonymous No.2271052]

>>2271043
Then get off the science board you tard

[Anonymous No.2271061]

>>2271048
>>2271052
You idiots.
I was addressing the fact that he's a total asshat for using >implying
I couldn't care less about his silly "point".
Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.2271063]

>>2271001
Your opinion is invalid. Psychology isn't useless at all. Wat a glorious way to demonstrate your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.2271067]

>>2271038
Pretty much this. It's not like it ever concludes finality from any of the results. It heavily defines its parameters, acknowledges that there may be other variables but uses the results in their current state to help and understand people, never with the finality of religion or anything of that nature. Because it is a science and it understands the fields limitations.

>>2271043
12 year olds should not be given computer access because of posters like this. "I disagree with your so called 'point' because of some green text!"

[Anonymous No.2271072]

>>2271061
And no-one else here cares about the colour of some text or the form someone's arguments take, as long as the arguments are clear. Maybe you'd feel more at home with the pedantic tards on /v/?

[Anonymous No.2271075]

>In every psychology thread ever: Children who base their opinions about psychology off of their uninformed view that modern psychology still adheres to the Freudian school of thought.

Go read up on cognitive psychology, biopsychology, and computational psychology and come back when you actually realize that psychology can be a natural science instead of a social science.

[Anonymous No.2271081]

>>2271061
>Implying we care about YOUR point

[Anonymous No.2271083]

>>2271072
Lick my anus. Did you even read my post?
I'm not arguing, I'm just insulting him.
FFS, learn to read, child.

[Anonymous No.2271088]

>>2271083
>I'm not arguing, I'm just insulting him.
Oh that makes you sound way more mature. We get it now.

Leave this board kid. You don't belong here.

[Anonymous No.2271090]

>>2271083
I did read your post. You're insulting him because of the form his argument took, while completely ignoring the point, and calling him moronic. Like I said, if you're going to pay such attention to inconsequential detail then perhaps you should fuck off to /v/ instead of being a retard. We're here to discuss the scientific merit of psychology, not insult people.

[Anonymous No.2271093]

>>2271088
Mature? I'm not the one pretending to be three people.

[Anonymous No.2271094]

>>2271083
All I did was type in some green text. Damn.

[Anonymous No.2271097]

>>2271093
You are debating at least two people. That post was my first one in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2271098]

>>2271093
Because in any thread there is only ever one person on the opposing side, samefagging it up

[Anonymous No.2271099]

[Anonymous No.2271100]

>>2271093
Except I made one of those posts.

[Anonymous No.2271101]

>>2271094
You did that incredibly obnoxious >implying thing.
Also, I'm drunk so I'm more likely to voice my displeasure

[Anonymous No.2271103]

>>2271101
Don't drink and post, it just leads to derailed threads.

[Anonymous No.2271104]

>>2271101
You really should get the fuck out of here.

[Anonymous No.2271107]

>>2271103
shut the fuck up faggot. I can drink and do what I want, so lick my anus.

[Anonymous No.2271108]

>>2271107
u mad?

[Anonymous No.2271110]

>>2271108
>>2271104
I bet you don't even play sports nerd. I could beat you up with just my dad's dick. Lick my anus.

[Anonymous No.2271115]

>>2271107
Stop pretending to be me you anus licker.
I don't type like that, I use proper capitalisation and much more style.

[Anonymous No.2271118]

>>2271115
PS. I'm a raging homo. LICK MY ANUS GUYS! LICK IT GOOD!

[Anonymous No.2271121]

>>2271115
>Implying it wasn't you.
>Implying you aren't so drunk you're typing crap you don't even remember
>Implying implying implying

Oh wait, this sucks. Someone get this thread back on track.

[Anonymous No.2271122]

>>2271110
I lift 220 lbs. Wat nigger.

[Anonymous No.2271123]

>>2271118
Liking anal stimulation doesn't mean I'm gay! It just means I'm open minded and enjoy anal stimulation

[Anonymous No.2271125]

>>2271121
It wasn't me. I was not even drunk, I was just making a point.

[Anonymous No.2271128]

>>2271121
Right. Psychology and neuroscience are sciences.

[Anonymous No.2271130]

>>2271125
We don't care about your point.

[Anonymous No.2271131]

>>2271122
>>2271122

YEEEEAAA BUDDDAYYYY

[Anonymous No.2271133]

Psych major here. I'll break shit down for you.

Psychology is mostly made of 5 branches. None of them likes the other much, some of them reject one another. Some may say that one is better while others would say that all are equal.

Psychanalisys: Freud/Jung are pretty much discredited, but they are sometimes taken seriously and parts of their method still exist. Mostly based on let's try shit until you feel better.

Phenomenology: Philosophy based, mostly Husserl and Heidegger. Tries to see the relation between self and world, while taking some things from psychanalisys and making some therapies. Has produced some results, but very debatable.

Socio-Historic: Marx. To understand man you must understand society and work and how these relate and identify man. Mostly theoric, has some influence in education (notion that everyone can doanything if given proper conditions, etc).

Behavior Analisys: Scientific method, empirical observation, laws, determinism, pragmatism. Everything is behavior and to understand behavior is to understand man. Experimental, theoric/practical. Has many implications in relations of people and has produced most studies out there that are respected scientifically.

Neurosciences: Brainpsych. Hate it or love it. Good old cold science applyed to psych. Superbros with behaviorism, hated by pheno/analisys/socio.

Take this short explanation as the explanations by Hawking on physics in his pop-sci books. It's pretty much this, but there is a shitfuckton of complications and details that would take way more time and characters than 4chan would ever allow me to post.

[Anonymous No.2271134]

>>2271125
>>2271123
So you're a liar too? Way to lose all credibility. Also enjoying anal stimulation does not make you gay, but enjoying the anal stimulation that a man provides makes you gay. And I quote:

>LICK MY ANUS GUYS! LICK IT GOOD!
>GUYS

[Anonymous No.2271135]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2271137]

>>2271134
Then you must be gay too because whenever you masturbate it's a dude touching your cock.
You have just been intellectually checkmated.

[Anonymous No.2271141]

>>2271137
>Implying I masturbate
>Implying I wasn't picking up ladies from the day I was born
>Implying I didn't fuck the midwife right there on the floor after my birth

[Anonymous No.2271142]

>>2271133
Also, personally, I'd drop everything but behaviorism and neurosciences, pack our shit and move with our bros in medicine and biology, but some fucktards want to be around history and philosophy to discuss "what is existance?" and "What is Freud's vision on farts?"

[Anonymous No.2271146]

>>2271137
And by "You have just been intellectually checkmated" I meant to say "I'm sexually attracted to men."

[Anonymous No.2271151]

>>2271141
Alright /sci/, here's one for you.

what if, like... a baby, right... like a new baby... had a baby of its own?

[Anonymous No.2271154]

>>2271133
Which type do I need in order to get lovely prescriptions?

[Anonymous No.2271155]

>>2271142
You do know behaviorism has been discredited also right? Of course Skinner and others' work was pioneering and we still use a lot of their findings, the basic premise - the mind is a black box - has no place in contemporary psychology or neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.2271157]

>>2271133

If you ever use Heidegger in the same sentence as 'psychology' I might actually stab you.

Lord Heidegger hated psychology. He even lol'd about psychology in part 1 of Being and Time. In fact he used psychology as an example of what he was not doing.

So in other words psychology is not even a coherent philosophy, and I would guess not even a coherent science. In short, it is pseudo-science. Enjoy your shit-tier degree.

[Anonymous No.2271161]

>>2271154
Depends on the laws in you country. I don't know about the US, but many countries only allow psychiatrists to prescribe meds.
But if any, you would probably find meds with phenomenology/psychanalisys therapists.

[Anonymous No.2271162]

>>2271133

And its called psychoanalysis not 'Psychanalisys' you fucking dipshit.

[Anonymous No.2271164]

>>2271157
How is it pseudo-science? It's not a pseudo-science until psychologists make claims based on unscientific principals. The claims are just never concrete.

[Anonymous No.2271165]

>>2271157
Heidegger was Nazi poet, not philosopher or even scientist.

[Anonymous No.2271169]

>>2271157
Not the guy you're responding to, but seriously, fuck you. Psychology isn't pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.2271170]

Heidegger was talking about psychology during his life time. I don't think he'd be too pissed off with all the theorists who blatantly stole his ideas to make the "science" better.

[Anonymous No.2271173]

>>2271157
Daseianalisys. Fucking exists and I've heard of therapists that do it.
Besides, your argument only applies to phenomenology-based psych, and they admit to not even trying to do science.

>>2271155
Behavior analisys still stands, Skinner is still far more valid than Freud. To compare, Newton was also dsicredited, but his shit still works in many situations.

[Anonymous No.2271174]

Well I'm a grad student doing a PhD in psych so:

> Sciences

Making progress in some areas, rife with bullshit in others, ultimately crippled by a lack of agreed upon fundamentals.

> Careers

Some people make good money from a background in psychology. Although I haven't really seen the job market yet, I wouldn't recommend trying to make a career out of it. Ultimately you don't actually have any skills.

> Current and future relevance to society

Very, very important with regards to shaping certain societal norms. Plus org psych basically feeds business its own bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2271175]

>>2271157
>Shit tier degree

Why is something always shit tier just because it isn't a science?

It can still pay well AND provide people with the ability to counsel others. Say what you want about the degree, but counselling has helped many, many people.

[Anonymous No.2271184]

>>2271165
Reductio ad Hitlerum (look it up it is a formal association fallacy)
>>2271170
No he was not doing psychology and no he would not appreciate non-philosophers plying his philosophy for psychological insights.

Formal ontology has little to do with psychology. In fact psychology is already too mentalistic.

>>2271169
No demarcation known to philosophers would render 'psychology' a science. Maybe you could call it a degenerative research programme (re Lakatos).


>>2271170
>>2271169

[Anonymous No.2271185]

>>2271173

> Behavior analisys still stands, Skinner is still far more valid than Freud.

It 'still stands' in some form, but has been almost completely left behind by the cognitive revolution. Just because something is more relevant that Freud, doesn't mean it is particularly relevant.

[Anonymous No.2271195]

It uses the scientific method, it is a science. Albeit one without any verifiable results.

Is this not a fair assessment?

[Anonymous No.2271197]

Lol, shit-tier philosophy degree fag is talking about psychology as pseudoscience. Go flip some burgers.

[Anonymous No.2271200]

>>2271197
>Implying a philosopher is qualified to flip burgers

[Anonymous No.2271201]

>>2271195
>>2271195

> Is this not a fair assessment?

Yes, because what does this mean:

> verifiable results.

Replication is how all sciences are verified. How do psych experiments not allow for replication?

[Anonymous No.2271203]

>>2271195
>Albeit one without any verifiable results.

Congratulations by your reasoning creationism is a science.

[Anonymous No.2271204]

>>2271184

How the hell can psychology be too "mentalisitc?" Psychology is the study of mental phenomenon. Heidegger's whole point in B&T was that you can't discuss a mental phenomenon without incorporating it's fundamental ontology, IE the being of Dasein. In order to do that psych needs to be more about the mental not less.

[Anonymous No.2271207]

>>2271204
Ah, philosophy.
Yes, since Heidegger said it, it has to be true.

[Anonymous No.2271212]

>>2271201
Part of my comment is not allowed, so here it is in image format.

[Anonymous No.2271215]

>>2271203

What experiments do creationists perform

[Anonymous No.2271216]

>>2271204
>Heidegger's whole point in B&T was that you can't discuss a mental phenomenon without incorporating it's fundamental ontology

No. The idea of a subject with a set of mental concepts or with mental content is exactly what B&T tries to obviate. This was the entire point of Heidegger's critique of Cartesianism.

Fundamental ontology is important precisely insofar as it grounds our everyday being-in-the-world, and our ability to ask the question of the meaning of Being.

None of this, none of it at all, has anything to do with psychology or mental concepts, mental representations.

[Anonymous No.2271217]

>>2271215
thought experiments

[Anonymous No.2271218]

Psychology is not a science... Deal with it.

Studies prove that this shit doesn't work better than any other placebo...

33% patients go better
33% worse
33% don't give a shit
(100% are more poor...)

[Anonymous No.2271219]

>>2271212
No. Because multivariate statistics.

[Anonymous No.2271220]

>>2271195
the scientific method is a process that produces results that can be replicated or verified

[Anonymous No.2271224]

>>2271212

If someone else finds a variable or a model that better explains the data, then that model is selected over the previous one. That's the whole point of science. As you learn more about the world you incorporate it into the scientific field.

That comment is a complete misinterpretation of the word 'verifiable'.

[Anonymous No.2271225]

>>2271218
[citation needed]

also, psycholgy =/= therapy only

[Anonymous No.2271228]

>>2271218
cbt is more like 60%, actually

[Anonymous No.2271229]

>>2271218

Here's a tip for the next time you want to have an opinion on psych even though you know nothing about it: there are more areas of research than just clinical psychology.

[Anonymous No.2271232]

>>2271218
Yeah, psychological studies.

So if psychology doesn't work then by your logic, the test is wrong and psychology must work.

[Anonymous No.2271236]

>>2271207

I don't agree with Heidegger. I'm just shocked that anyone thinks that you can incorporate his ideas into a psychology.

This is my problem with weak pseudo-disciplines like psychology. They are the preverbial non-experts. They don't know science and they don't know philosophy, but they are happy to use both as part of their explanations, and with palpable disregard for what people like 'heidegger' were actually saying.

I see the same type of shit in litereature and other humanities studies. All they do is pull ideas from philosophers (usually post-modern philosophers) and they apply these ideas to benign shit they have observed. And since they are not philosophers and since they have no particular skill in reading philosophy, 9 times out of 10 they get it wrong.

[Anonymous No.2271238]

>>2271232
Makes sense to me.

PSYCHOLOGY CONFIRMED FOR SCIENCE!

[Anonymous No.2271241]

>>2271236
Heidegger is dead faggots. It doesn't matter what he meant you can say whatever you want about him.

Heidegger sucked cock.

See. And nothing happened to me.

[Anonymous No.2271247]

>>2271236
>weak pseudo-discipline
I'm going to use that expression more.

As for me, it's still the lack of formal proofs that closes the door.

[Anonymous No.2271250]

>Noone in this thread commented on the slammin' hottie in the OP
>Homosexuals are not attracted to women
>Therefore I can deduce everyone in this thread is gay.

However, that isn't true, is it? Psychology is a load of baloney, and that experiment proves it.

[Anonymous No.2271252]

I feel bad

>What says psychology? "I want to kill my father for fuck my mother."

I want to hurt someone

>What says psychology? "I want to kill my father for fuck my mother."

Seems logic to me.

>Implying psychology is shit.

[Anonymous No.2271256]

>>2271250
I doubt anyone comes to /sci/ to see nudity.

[Anonymous No.2271257]

>>2271252
What is this shit?

[Anonymous No.2271260]

>>2271241

>implying I'm a Heideggerean

Man I don't give a fuck. I'm just fucking tired of shit-tier pseudo-disciplines that use science and philosophy as a theoretical basis from which to make bullshit claims sound substantive.

[Anonymous No.2271265]

>>2271256
Well that's my point. Psychologists don't take variables like that into account. A phycist will look at a meteor and determine things from e=mc^2 and other equations, not just one. A psychologist will just say "well the meteor is going this way"

or "well you are crying about your dead mother, is there some sort of sexual atractiont here" instead of looking at the variable that maybe you are just sad.

[Anonymous No.2271273]

>>2271250

Is that Modus ponens? Haven't taken formal logical classes in a while

[Anonymous No.2271275]

ITT: Discussing Holywood version of psyhcology.

[Anonymous No.2271279]

>>2271275
>Holywood
> psyhcology

[Anonymous No.2271282]

>>2271265

I am honestly fascinated by the way you have made sense of all this.

Can you give me a specific example of a research psychologist failing to take obvious variables into account?

[Anonymous No.2271285]

>>2271275

>Holywood
>psyhcology.

[Anonymous No.2271289]

>>2271273
It's a half baked syllogism.

[Anonymous No.2271290]

>>2271282
OK, well at a test at my school my psychology teacher wanted to show how behavour enforcement works, so she got a student and said "have a lolly each time I tap your shoulder" and everytime the teacher tapped he stduents shoulder she got a lolly. But maybe she just liked lollies? Maybe it wasn't because of the tapping at all.

[Anonymous No.2271291]

>>2271279
First mistake was made because I don't care how is it written, maybe murricans do care, I don't.
Second was typo.

[Anonymous No.2271297]

>>2271290
I don't even want to begin...

[Anonymous No.2271300]

>>2271290

What do you do on /sci/

This board is about science and you know nothing at all with this kind of things. It's too complicated for you, psychodown.

[Anonymous No.2271302]

>>2271300
I mainly come for the maths aspect, but i dunerstand this quite well so shut your mouth if you don't have a rebuttle

[Anonymous No.2271305]

I'm here to rescue you from the Nazi that is Martin.

[Anonymous No.2271306]

>>2271290

> But maybe she just liked lollies? Maybe it wasn't because of the tapping at all.

Maybe what wasn't because of the tapping?

[Anonymous No.2271309]

>>2271306
the student turning around to get the lolly

[Anonymous No.2271310]

>>2271302
>rebuttle
What kind of bottle?

[Anonymous No.2271311]

>>2271302

>psychodown want to know something about math.
>lol

[Anonymous No.2271315]

>X says that Y is not a science
>Z says that Y is a science
>billions and billions of uneducated replies
>????
>/sci/
>greytexters gonna hate

[Anonymous No.2271317]

Everyone shut the fuck up.

Sage this thread

[Anonymous No.2271320]

>>2271315
Z is the right answer.
>Z is always the good answer.

[Anonymous No.2273431]

ok

[Anonymous No.2273460]

>>2269685
OP here. Just got back to see 111 replies. Awesome, I thought. Then I realised where I was posting. Maybe fifteen of them were on topic, but of those most of them were just arguing over whether or not it was a science, completely ignoring the latter two points.

Thanks, retards.

[Anonymous No.2273513]

>>2273460
Well maybe you shouldn't have been so gay

[Anonymous No.2273530]

>>2271236

Smart philosobro there.

Don't accept the psychofag hate, your arguments are valid, intelligent and well thought out.

Also burger flipping, after getting out of the uni in 2008 (great recession lol), started programming while working as a bus boy, valet etc. Ended up landing a job pulling 63k a year doing tech work on the BoT.

Smart philosobros can do anything.

[Anonymous No.2273563]

>>2273530
Except land jobs that require qualifications they don't have.

[Anonymous No.2273574]

>>2273530
>He calls himself a bro

Also, dump the rest of that set OP you dickwank.

[Anonymous No.2273594]

>>2273563

Except that relevant education is significantly less important than relevant work history and ability. Unless said school is a feeder for a specific organization or you're an engineer.

All professional degree are open to anyone and every developmental field is more interested in ability than certificates. Though certs help you get in the door.

While working burning my fucking hands for people who didn't deserve it,I used to think the successful philosophy major stories were all jargon propaganda. But then life happened.

Being able to read, reason and argue takes you places, regardless of background.

[Anonymous No.2273601]

>>2273594
>Successful
>Philosophy

And this is how I know you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.2273606]

>>2273594
>baby's first troll

[Anonymous No.2273805]

bumparino

[Anonymous No.2275159]

ok