[ 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: 24 KB, 316x404, Psychology[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004107 No.3004107 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/,

Why is Psychology not a science?

>> No.3004115

Because it wasn't in the last 9000 threads just like this one.

>> No.3004117

It is.

>> No.3004125

Protip: It is.

>> No.3004126
File: 117 KB, 604x453, 1301600957119.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004126

>Why is Psychology not a science?
<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}[/spoiler]

>> No.3004123

>>3004117

How so?

>> No.3004129

>>3004117
Is not, it's a social science.

>> No.3004130

>>3004107
Anything can be a science if it uses deductive/inductive reasoning.

However, for it to be a real science it must be able to create fruitful theories that have predictive power.

Psychology is less likely to do this.

>UFOlogy is of course steps below

>> No.3004133

>>3004123
Because it studies the world critically using observation, experimentation and peer review.

>> No.3004136

>>3004129

Why is a social science not a real science

>> No.3004139

because /sci/ is a bunch of close minded self-important aspies who think theyre hot shit for being physics majors

>> No.3004141

>>3004136
Because /sci/ is filled with science fans, not scientists.

>> No.3004142

>>3004130

> predictive power

For this to be true, you have to imagine that everyone peer reviewing psych journal articles is turning a blind eye to the fact that no one is making any predictions

>> No.3004150

>>3004133

Thomas Kuhn argued that the difference between a real science and a proto-science is that real science have agreed-upon fundamental rules/concepts. He went on to argue that psychology does not have these. His argument was that although psychology purports to use the rules of science, it does so using conjecture rather than an extension of agreed upon principles.

>> No.3004168

>>3004136
Based on methodology and theory. It's merely hypothesis and observation. You can say, "OH HAY, PEOPLE BRAIN REACT TO PHERAMOAN THIS WAY" but psychology is answering why.

>> No.3004169
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 0000951b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004169

>> No.3004176

>>3004139

>> No.3004180

>>3004139
You're out of control, sir.

>> No.3004190

>>3004150
>real science have agreed-upon fundamental rules/concepts.

I don't see how lacking these would qualify a field as a pseudoscience. If anything it would mean that psychology is still a new field and needs to be studied more.

>> No.3004192

>>3004190
Actually that would make it a proto-science as you said.

>> No.3004197

>>3004168

Very well. How would a model akin to what is used in physics attempt to answer why people behave a certain way?

>> No.3004203
File: 22 KB, 240x161, Kansas_DINOSAUR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004203

Check: Scientific Method.

Use that fucker and it's science.

A lot of "creationary biologists" bought a Ph.D and now they work in the Kansas Museum of Natural Herp de Derp.

Why don't you go troll THEM for a change?

>> No.3004206

>>3004142
>ignored for idiocy

>> No.3004209

>>3004203
Yea, but are any of them seriously posting here? All we get are trolls, and that would just lead to meta-trolling.

>> No.3004212

>>3004192

I would much rather you would have said "Well, what would these agreed-upon fundamentals actually look like? If we are to judge psychology according to the yardstick of physics, what, for that matter, are the fundamentals of physics?"

Of course you cannot say mathematics, since all formal models use mathematics, and psychology uses formal models

>> No.3004217

>>3004203

> Why don't you go troll THEM for a change?

I'm not trolling anyone. People studying psychology would benefit from thinking about these questions, as would people studying hard science who merely take these things as read.

>> No.3004221

Because it is heavily influenced by social pressures rather empirical evidence.

Homosexuality used to be considered a disorder, but was removed from the DSM due to increasing pressure, even though there is no empirical evidence suggesting whether it is caused by genetics, environment, or just plain choice.

You can't do this with concepts such as gravity. No matter what you put in the wikipedia page, the value is universally the same and can be measured within a miniscule standard deviation by anyone on the planet.

The entire fields of psychology, philosophy, and sociology now have a reputation for essentially being liberal ideological indoctrination.

>> No.3004232

>>3004221

This is true only for certain aspects of psychology. Although I am the first to admit that what you say is true for some fields, cognition is not infected with politics. And hey, we were birthed by Chomsky so we should get double points for being apolotical.

>> No.3004233

>>3004221
Or perhaps it was included in the first place due to social norms, but removed as our understanding improved.

>> No.3004238

>>3004221
eh? You must be one of those new age aspies.

>> No.3004248

>>3004238

>Oh no, he challenged my flimsy belief system that other people decided for me
>Better start throwing ad hominems and straw men out

>> No.3004259

>>3004221
> just plain choice

Stopped reading there, full retard.

>> No.3004260

Psychologist
>Gets idea
>Constructs experiment to test idea
>Gathers data
>Publishes results
>Others repeat
>Accuracy determined

What part of this is unscientific, or which parts don't psychologists do?

>> No.3004275
File: 10 KB, 174x167, 1276179239689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004275

>>3004221
> The entire fields of psychology, philosophy, and sociology now have a reputation for essentially being liberal ideological indoctrination.

What the fuck am I reading?

You're either a troll or your parents and church messed your head up and you've been indoctrinated as a sheltered, racist, homophobic traditionalist.

Y'all.

>> No.3004288

>>3004248
>oh no, someone realized I had no idea what I was talking about and identified my major malfunction

>> No.3004311

>>3004275

Yeah but its totally true.

>> No.3004318

>>3004197
You wouldn't?

>> No.3004324

>>3004275
>>3004259

0/10

Both of you

Replies full of ad hominem and baseless assumptions

There is nothing discriminating against homosexuals and absolutely nothing about race at all.

Have fun with your "science" field that ignores empirical data in favor of current mores.

If you try really hard, maybe you can re read that post and make a legitimate reply

>> No.3004358

>>3004324
Man, I love quantum string theory too. How many dimensions do you think there are?

>> No.3004360
File: 13 KB, 202x203, 1299860907568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004360

Psychology isn't a science (and neither are any other Social Sciences yet) because Statistics is still an art.

>> No.3004371

>>3004136
>deduction through experimentation.
>deduction through observation.
Learn the fucking difference. It's not a science.

>> No.3004376

>>3004371
And that's why zoology isn't a science either, thanks anon!

>> No.3004377

>>3004360

What do you mean by 'statistics is an art'?

>> No.3004380

>>3004376
If you were trying to be sarcastic, it failed tripfag.
Because you're right. Zoology isn't a science.

>> No.3004381

>>3004377
I think she was kidding. Statistics is a science, one that the social sciences rely upon heavily.

>> No.3004382

>>3004324
The only people who argue that homosexuality is a choice are the people arguing against it.

>> No.3004383

>>3004371

So this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

is observation rather than experiment? Why?

>> No.3004388
File: 51 KB, 300x393, 1303729938100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004388

>>3004380

>> No.3004393

>>3004381

Well, who knows, when I started going through computational modeling I said to my supervisor 'it seems that the transformation of verbal theory into mathematical model is akin to an art' and he said 'yep'.

>> No.3004390

>>3004376

Zoology is actually considered a pre med degree now at alot of universities

>> No.3004394

>>3004383
I don't think you know the definition of "experiment."

>> No.3004401

>>3004394
Seems like an experiment to me. It's got controls, a hypothesis, repeated runs, everything. What's the difference?

>> No.3004406

>>3004394

How is it not an experiment?

>> No.3004407

>>3004221
You just picked out one negative instance of psychology then concluded that the whole field is contaminated.

>You can't do this with concepts such as gravity.

Same with cognition, biological basis for priming, memory, attention, study of reasoning, perception, etc.


Is it just me or are these anti-psychology folks are actually anti-science? There are collaborators
from different fields that are interested in making psychology more empirical where evidence is lacking. To go against this is just simply an attitude of anti-science.

>> No.3004413

>>3004407
Actually, this guy hit the nail on the head.
>>3004139

>> No.3004415

>>3004382

That is completely missing the point of my first post

I used it as an example to show that one behavior i.e. homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder even though there is no real empirical evidence against it, and then later removed due to societal pressures, without any empirical evidence other than how the general population "felt".

This is not the only example of why psychology and sociology are not sciences. Being politically correct will always take priority over real world data on any issue.

I was attacking psychology, not homosexuality. I gave no opinion or stance on it in that post. The kids on the slow bus just missed the point and assumed it

>> No.3004419

>>3004415
OR maybe this happened.
>>3004233

>> No.3004422

>>3004415

> on any issue

I can not see why you continue to think this

Have you not seen the SD difference between black and white IQ? If social norms were the determining factor, why has this persisted?

>> No.3004425

>>3004381
Actually, no. Statistics is very much an art still, because a great many of the criteria for fruitfulness and quality of models is subjectively determined. That's why there are so many competing methodologies for statistical analysis.

I wasn't joking in the least.

>> No.3004434

Because Neuroscience Is

>> No.3004439

>>3004434

Pfft, neuroscience is a joke even within psych

>> No.3004438
File: 26 KB, 114x120, 1301954066821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004438

>>3004425
Oh. Well okay then.

>> No.3004447

>>3004425

What I don't understand is how the hard sciences manage to collect data while side-stepping these issues

>> No.3004462

>>3004439
sociology is the punchline

>> No.3004482

>>3004422

Have you seen what happens if you even tease this topic online or in real life. You get attacked with massive amounts of logical fallacies.

The military has 30 years worth of testing data from many different races across a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, but that data was considered "invalid" because the results were considered biased somehow

>> No.3004506

>>3004482

I don't know what it is like in yankville but in Australian our professors do not skirt the issue

>> No.3004514

>observe humans doing stupid shit
>test to see if you can make humans do that stupid shit
Clearly not science.

>> No.3004521

>>3004462

Sociology isn't even worth joking about. Neuroscience is the little brother trying to flex his non-existent muscles in front of the mirror (it's cute but at least he's trying and someday he might be worth something), sociology is the retarded cripple we keep locked in the basement out of embarrassment.

>> No.3004531

>>3004514
obvious straw man is obvious

>> No.3004532

>>3004447
Nothing wrong with data collection. It's the processing and interpretation that gets wonky.

Statistics has worked reasonably well for the physical sciences so far because the objects of study can be well-defined and are usually ok to treat as static entities with no extra uncertainties. Social science doesn't have that same luxury.

>> No.3004533

>>3004531
I don't think you know what that word means.

>> No.3004537

>>3004533
right...

>> No.3004543

>>3004537
I don't think you know what sarcasm is

>> No.3004553

>>3004543
right back at you

>> No.3004559
File: 26 KB, 400x300, banana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004559

>>3004553
>>3004543
>>3004537
>>3004533
>>3004531

>> No.3004562

>>3004532

Ignore the other responses. What you are implying is that statistics is not in fact an art. You realise that, right? If I run X through process Y and the fault lies with X, then there is nothing wrong with Y, correct?

>> No.3004566

>>3004506

Tell me more

If you bring up disparities between IQ's, SAT scores, GRE scores between different races and male and females, you are immediately hammered with personal attacks such as being a racist, sexist, etc.

Then again, in many of the states here, they are not allowed to teach evolution in high school and sex ed must be based around abstinence only education, so i'm not surprised.

>> No.3004590

>>3004566

I'll tell you a story, which both confirms and disproves your theory. Another grad student says to me: "That professor, I don't like him."

"Well why is that?"

"Racist. Said in a lecture there is a standard deviation difference between black and white IQ"

>> No.3004611

>>3004562
That's very poor logic. What I'm indicating is that when applied to the physical sciences the 'artistic' or 'aesthetic' side of Statistical analysis is largely irrelevant because of the background principles of the discipline.

In the social sciences, though, the methods can develop eccentricities for which there is no hard and fast methodological standard: you simply have schools of thought or different approaches altogether. It's the difference between where the uncertainties are.

>> No.3004627

>>3004590
That's the problem. It's racist to say the disparity means whites are smarter than blacks, but it's retarded to say raw information is racist.

The disparity is easily explained by basic socio-economic issues, such as basic schooling, parenting, and basic resources. A rich white kid with a bed time story is gonna score better on a test than a poor black kid with one parent who works two jobs and can't read that bed time story.

>> No.3004646

>>3004611

So you have a tool that can handle certain input well and other input poorly. I'm still failing to see where the 'art' comes into it.

>> No.3004656

>>3004646
Not the person you are responding to but:

There are different ways you can interpret your data using statistical analysis. I thunk he's trying to say that it's an art in the way people would say something done beautifully and creatively is an art. Getting messy data to show something meaningful can be quite something.

>> No.3004666

>>3004656

That's fine, but those 'different ways' should still be utilised at a formal level

I'm not disagreeing on principle here, I'm just failing to see clearly what he is referring to. Perhaps an example would help?

>> No.3004665

>>3004627

The problem with that reason is that those disparities are still present across all races, even when they have similar or identical socioeconomic backgrounds.

>> No.3004673

>>3004665

Which ties in nicely to the fact that one of the most fundamental tenets of western civilisation is that society exists to engender achievement in all people, assuming all people are fundamentally exactly the same

People shit on psych for this but the whole western liberal mindset is predicated upon NO gender difference, NO race differece, NO difference anywhere. If there are differences, the house of cards comes tumbling down.

>> No.3004696

>>3004646
Just start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_selection

Applying Statistics is an art in the same way painting is an art. You make decisions about what constitutes a faithful representation and you put in and leave out whatever is deemed appropriate.

This causes few problems for the physical sciences because the background assumptions are fixed. In the social sciences, the background assumptions change all the time, thus your choice of model can itself have consequences.

>> No.3004710

>>3004696

Before we go on any further, what are you? Grad? Post-doc? Higher up? Your writing is too clean for an undergrad.

>> No.3004723

>>3004710
>Implying Op's ability to use spell check and properly use a comma, and question mark show any sign of age.

>> No.3004732

>>3004723

I am OP so your point is moot.

The skill inherent in the person I am questioning does not reside in spelling or basic grammar. Scientific writing demands a certain level of brevity and clarity, which this person has in spades. it might seem simple to the untrained but it is a difficult skill to learn. Hence my question.

>> No.3005505

>>3004732

Except most science journals would absolute fail the Crystal Clear English mark (or whatever equivalent). This can almost turned to the excuse to call other people stupid.

Anyway, this is OT.

>> No.3005541
File: 20 KB, 250x250, 1296351621640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3005541

>implying psychology theories are falsifiable

>> No.3005548

>>3005541

> Implying theory of physics (quantum mechanics, string theory) can be falsified

That said, 4chan is full of retards. If people really took "psychology isn't a science" seriously, we would hear about it at the academies. Do we? Nope.

>> No.3005562

>>3005548
Is that like a reverse anthropic argument?

"How do we know Psychology is scientific?" "Because we see Psychology departments at Universities."

>> No.3005590

>>3005548
>implying quantum mechanics and string theory can't be falsified.

Seriously, quantum mechanics is very easy to falsify, since it makes a ton of precise, unavoidable predictions. String theory implies quantum mechanics so it's also in that sense easily falsifiable. The problem is that phenomena unique to string theory lie at such high energies that we can't investigate them directly (as well as the fact that there isn't one well defined string theory, there's a bunch of them.)