[ 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: 10 KB, 200x284, freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4785559 No.4785559[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

You have 10 seconds to explain why psychology isn't science. Oh wait, you can't.

>> No.4785564

>>4785559
But Freudian stuff isn't science.

>> No.4785567
File: 283 KB, 616x572, 4de9c4cbedc4f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4785567

because you can't actually PROVE anything in psychology

it's all conjecture

>> No.4785575

>>4785567
ehhh can you really prove something in science? isn't it the good thing about it? its constant evolution?

not trolling
>>4785559
mmm because they cant experiment most of their stuff and because their conjetures do not apply in most of the cases

>> No.4785577

>>4785567
Fuck you, that's not even bullshit. That's horseshit.
Studies go a long way to proving psychological theories.

>> No.4785580

>>4785577
Calm down my son, what would your psychologist say about that angry? Debate us.

>> No.4785583

first assignment in PSYC101: they gave us 3 edited papers to choose from, and we had to either prove or disprove the papers with evidence from other research. Even Psych doesn't agree with the rigor of its research.

>> No.4785592
File: 38 KB, 600x448, 425631_215660668529870_211490985613505_412314_2126238065_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4785592

pic related

>> No.4785594

>>4785567
You can't PROVE a lot of stuff in physics too. You probably feel threatened because psychology can dig deep into your complexes.

>> No.4785597

>>4785559
Because you fuckers can't math and physics. Stochastic processes and DSP or GTFO.

inb4 you meant neuro or psychophysics - Freud was a troll...shit and cum everywhere

>> No.4785605

>>4785597
So if a psychologist has a second degree in particle physics or neuroscience then psychology is suddenly a legit thing? Herp.

>> No.4785607

>>4785594
Well, in that case psychology can't dig as deep as biology or chemistry or physics. Grow up people, lets focus please.

>> No.4785616

>>4785605
Only if he can't connect his studies in psychology with his studies in physics, do you understand? If he cannot do that then his studies in those "sciences" are completely independent.

>> No.4785623
File: 102 KB, 239x240, 1339900802122.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4785623

"Because of the success of science, there is, I think, a kind of pseudoscience. Social science is an example of a science which is not a science; they don't do [research] scientifically, they follow the forms you gather data, you do so-and-so and so forth but they don't get any laws, they haven't found out anything. Galilleo could say: 'I noticed that Jupiter was a ball with moons and not a god in the sky. Tell me, what happened to the astrologers?' Well they print their results in the newspapers, in the United States at least, in every daily paper every day. Why do we still have astrologers? . . . Now it might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of Lourdes. But if it is true it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve it . . . . Now its also possible that the results of this investigation have other consequences, namely, that nothing is there. . . . In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas he's the controller and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult science, because they follow all the forms and precepts of scientific investigation, but they are missing something essential, because the planes don't land."
-Richard Feynman

>> No.4785628

>>4785559

too many variables for reproducible result.

that work for ya?

>> No.4785630

Because your undergrads (along with art and musics) are in my remedial math class.
/thread

>> No.4785659

>>4785623
Well psychology HAS found concrete things. Things like conditioning, the different types of memory, mnemonic devices, the power of authority, and so on.

I think people just hate on psychology because its an easy target since the field is full of whacko's who should be in a jail cell, not an office.

>> No.4785658

Psychology is a soft science as its predictive capabilities/accuracy are widely variant depending on input.

It's as much a science as economics. They both have researchers who can predict outcomes to certain situations with reasonable accuracy better than chance would allow. The problem arises as there is just as many or more equally qualified persons in the field who are wrong more times then chance would allow.

Tl'dr: Subjective (sometimes untestable) peer review makes psychology a soft science.

>> No.4785676

>>4785659
The problem is that biology, neuroscience, and bioinformatics are set to replace the predictive capabilities of such discovers along with providing far tighter bounds on cause.

Psychology is going the way of classical physics, sure it works for some things; but if you want to understand and handle the border cases you're going to have to look somewhere else.

>> No.4785700

Burden of proof is on you, OP.

>> No.4785777

>>4785592
Psychologists confirmed for douchebags.

>> No.4785793

Pseudo-science nonsense, reported.

>> No.4785802

Because biologists and physicists are no good at providing therapy.

Psychiatrists are just as bad. They're like pill pushers. If you've got a serious condition, you go to a psychiatrist for the drug and a psychologist for the therapy.

>> No.4785816

All of the psychology majors I've ever met are liberal douchebags obsessed applying a disorder to every person they ever met. They also tend to have little to no understand of any other branch of science, even biology.
I really don't understand the point of psychology in the first place. What does it do that biology and neuroscience can't?

>> No.4785842
File: 1.80 MB, 904x892, giggle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4785842

Nobody can agree or prove each other wrong

>> No.4785855

Experiments aren't rigorous enough; too many unaccounted-for variables

>> No.4785854

>>4785816
Physiology in that sense is more like philosophy, once they were important because of the lack of instruments to do "real science" but now they are slowly diying.

>> No.4785901

>>4785559
Let us know when you get some laws that are inviolate.
-Math

>> No.4785910

>>4785901
Ooh, was it too soon?

>> No.4785926

>>4785623
I loved that chapter of the book.

>> No.4785930

>>4785816
The mind is an abstract thing. It can't be measured or seen with a microscope. You can't peel back someone's anger and examine their love. You have to do it indirectly, and that's what psychology does.

People on /sci/ hate it because it's not a diamond-hard science.

>> No.4785957

Can psychological theory make predictions?

>> No.4786031

>>4785957
Isn't that widely used in criminology?

>> No.4786036

>>4786031
Criminology uses established correlations. We want psychology to predict "Hey, if my model is right, then X should strongly correlate with Y!" and then test for X's correlation with Y. Instead what psychology does is find correlations and make a theory for them, that doesn't predict any new results and can't be tested