/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6065481]

Anyone else despise psychology?

I believe that it's pseudo-science. Their method for developing theories is complete BS and they generalize about everything. I've never been to a shrink but from what I've seen on TV and heard from my freinds is that they overcharge you for simple advice. Worst of all, psychology majors are the most pretentiouse cunts that you've ever seen, that's a fact.

I admit that I don't have extensive knowledge of it so I'm just gonna listen to what you goys have to say, I'm not here to argue. Convince me that I'm full of crap(except for most of the majors being cunts, that's a fact that I'm sure of)

[Anonymous No.6065491]

>>6065481
>goys

But ye, psychology really is bullshit. Neurology on the other hand....

[Anonymous No.6065505]

It is if you think psychoanalysis is still relevant.

[Anonymous No.6065510]

>>6065505
Is it?

[Anonymous No.6065514]

>I believe that it's pseudo-science.
A science and math board doesn't care about your beliefs.

>Their method for developing theories is complete BS and they generalize about everything.
What theories are you talking about?

>I've never been to a shrink but from what I've seen on TV and heard from my freinds is that they overcharge you for simple advice.
Neither psychiatry nor psychotherapy is the same as psychology. Psychiatry is a field of medicine and mainly consists of applied neuropharmacology. Psychotherapy does not require any qualifications other than having finished a certain kind of training in the kind of therapy you want to provide.

>Worst of all, psychology majors are the most pretentiouse cunts that you've ever seen, that's a fact.
Neither anecdotal evidence nor appeals to emotion are relevant to /sci/.

>I admit that I don't have extensive knowledge of it
Apparently you have none at all.

>so I'm just gonna listen to what you goys have to say,
The correct plural is "goyim".

[Anonymous No.6065515]

>>6065481
Well, let's see. It was started by a coke fiend who either wincested his daughter, or wanted to wincest his daughter.

How can anything good come out of that?

[Anonymous No.6065516]

>>6065510
The psychology being a psuedo-science part or the psychoanalysis bit? I don't see psychology as a psuedo-science because it uses the scientific method. Whether you consider it a "hard" science though is up for debate I guess (I don't think it is personally). Psychoanalysis is bullshit though.

[Anonymous No.6065524]

>>6065515
Contrary to your uneducated american beliefs, psychology was not founded by Freud. The scientific study of human behaviour has existed long before Freud and even though he gained a lot of attention in popular culture, he was only of marginal relevance to the history of psychology. Most of his work is seen as unscientific nowadays and is not even taught in most psychology curricula anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology

[Anonymous No.6065537]

>>6065514
Thanks for the knowledge but you got to get that sand out do your vigina. You're way too butthurt.

[Anonymous No.6065543]

I started hating it ever since the IQ shit flooded /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6065553]

>>6065537
There wasn't even any anger in his post, just refutation of the op's post.

[Anonymous No.6065554]

>>6065481
>confusing psychology with psychiatry

[Anonymous No.6065560]

>>6065537
>butthurt
He wasn't upset or angry at all, he just replied to OP.

[Anonymous No.6065564]

>>6065481
I bet OP also supports eugenics and thinks people with depression have no real problems.

[Anonymous No.6065567]

>idiot tells me if I scratch my face a certain way, it means I'm thinking or feeling X
>are you brain damaged, I enquire?
>nuh-uh, it r psychology, it r fact yo

I've never talked to an actual psych, but I've talked to more than one of those people. On that basis alone, yes, I kinda hate psychology.

[Anonymous No.6065573]

>>6065564
>and thinks people with depression have no real problems.

They do have no real problems other than being losers. "Depression" is a pathetic excuse and not a "mental disorder".

[Anonymous No.6065581]

>>6065573
OP here. I was depressed from age 10-18, then I started meditating and got t shit together.

The real reason people are depressed is beacuse their life sucks. Wether you don't have enough money or you're still a virgin, the problem is almost always external. I'm not saying that there aren't people who's brains are legitimately fucked up, it's just that 95% of people with " depression" have external problems, not internal ones.

[Anonymous No.6065589]

>>6065581
>then I started meditating

This is comedy gold. You practice /x/ tier spirituality, yet you come here to call the scientific study of human behaviour a "pseudo-science"? Toppest of all lels.

[Anonymous No.6065592]

>>6065573
>>6065581
I had depression for 4 years, believe it or not it's real, you don't get the sensory responses from external stimulation as you otherwise would, your life feels like you are watching a movie of yourself.

I have no idea why retards would think that "it's not real". It's as real as the flu.

[Anonymous No.6065596]

>>6065581
>Wether you don't have enough money or you're still a virgin, the problem is almost always external.

Those problems are not external at all. Not having enough money is caused by you being a lazy dumbfuck who doesn't bother getting a job or education. You being a virgin is caused by you being ugly and an unsocial loser. Those are all your own faults. Stop blaming them on society. If you're inferior, your genetics will go extinct. That's evolution. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6065599]

>>6065592
>you don't get the sensory responses from external stimulation as you otherwise would
That sounds like a neurological disorder.

>your life feels like you are watching a movie of yourself.
untestable nonsense

>It's as real as the flu.
Is it? What virus is causing it?

[Anonymous No.6065603]

>>6065589
Can someone please tell this asshole how fucking stupid he is?

>>6065592
Then you must have been part of the 5%. I bet that if you won the lottery the depression would have disappeared in an instant. What were you doing with your life? We're you just sitting on your ass at home or did you go out an do things, be honest

[Anonymous No.6065608]

>>6065596
Those were just examples you nitwit. Larn tew reed.

[Anonymous No.6065607]

>>6065603
How am I "stupid" just because science hurts your feelings? If you can't handle scientific facts and if you prefer to dwell in /x/ spirituality fantasy worlds, you should consider leaving this board. On /sci/ we accept and respect science and math and we value them of higher priority than "muh feelings".

[Anonymous No.6065614]

>>6065608
As I demonstrated, the examples did not support the OP's point.

[Anonymous No.6065622]

>>6065607
Maybe learn what meditation is before spouting >hurr durr back to /x/. It has nothing to do with spirituality(whatever the fuck that mean) or /x/ crap.

>>6065614
The only thing you demonstrated was how dumb you are

[Anonymous No.6065626]

>>6065622
By definition meditation is a spiritual exercise. How fucking uneducated are you? And how do you think "lol ur stoopid" is an argument? You are literally talking like a 4 year old.

[Anonymous No.6065633]

>>6065622
>/x/tard
>spamming insults
>doesn't even know what he's talking about

Nothing to see here, guys.

[Anonymous No.6065630]

>>6065603
>Can someone please tell this asshole how fucking stupid he is?
For this post, I shall function as the voice of everyone, who didn't take up your challenge.

Fuck that nigga, next thing I know you'll want me to hold your dick while you piss. Take a lesson from Darth Vader and do it yourself. After all, you must have a good reason to believe meditation cures depression. Also, I don't know anything about neurology and the people who do are probably just lurking and eating pop corn.

[Anonymous No.6065634]

>>6065603
I did things but with reduced productivity because of the lack of a proper functioning "reward mechanism" in muh brain. I got some pills, did even more sports and even more socialization and it all helped in the end. The pills were needed to get me started though.

I'm cured now for quite some time.

[Anonymous No.6065635]

>>6065603
>>6065622
>oh no, this person posted something that hurts my feelings
>I can't refute his post because I know he's actually right
>I'm just gonna call him stupid
>that'll save my hurt feelings

Please do us all a favor and leave /sci/ until you gained the maturity of an adult.

[Anonymous No.6065646]

>>6065626
In my time of crawling through the tepid, turd clogged inter-tubes, I once came across a person, who claimed meditation is just a mental exercise to calm yourself down. The religious hoo-ha is fluff, but the techniques aren't and are testable (brain waves and shit), or so he claimed.

>>6065622
Is that you, snakey boy? If so, sup dawg, love your work.

[Anonymous No.6065647]

>>6065626
Look up scientific studies. Not one will refute the fact that it has many benefits.

>>6065633
>can't think of anything to say
>your from /x/ hurr durr
I can taste your butthurt


>>6065635
1/10

[Anonymous No.6065649]

>>6065646
>I once came across a person
>or so he claimed.

Very convincing argument. You fully convinced every reader of the fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6065655]

>>6065646
Uh, no. Who's snakey boy?

>>6065649
Just go away, this thread isn't about
Meditation. I wanted input from people with knowledge about psychology. I didn't make it to argue with 16 year olds.

[Anonymous No.6065654]

>>6065647
Why are you moving the goalposts? Nobody was talking about the alleged benefits. Of course the effects of spirituality are topic of research. That doesn't make your /x/ garbage less retarded however. The effects of religiosity are also being researched. Does that mean religion is science? No, it fucking doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6065658]

>>6065647
>promotes spirituality
>on a science board
>by posting nothing but kindergarten insults

Go away already.

[Anonymous No.6065659]

>>6065649
>thinks I'm arguing and not guessing as to who this anon might be
>thinks that anon and me are one and the same
Disengage and fix your jimmies, they have clearly been rustled severely.

>>6065655
>Uh, no. Who's snakey boy?
One of my favorite trolls.

[Anonymous No.6065661]

>>6065658
I didn't say shit about spirituality(which I also think is bullshit) and I've never even been to /x/.

Wtf is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.6065662]

>>6065481

best science ever, anything you say is very much true.

Like I took the test and got myself a PhD, making over 200k atm.

[Anonymous No.6065664]

>>6065661
>I didn't say shit about spirituality

Were you the poster promoting meditation?

[Anonymous No.6065667]

>>6065661
>Wtf is wrong with you people?
Autism.

[Anonymous No.6065669]

>>6065664
Yes I was. Unlike you I've actually meditated and know what I'm talking about. STFU and look up some scientific studies about it. As a matter of fact, I know that you are going out of your way to be ignorant and won't even try to look it up so here-

http://en.www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation

[Anonymous No.6065675]

>>6065669
>Unlike you I've actually meditated and know what I'm talking about
Your experience with spirituality does not constitute any authority. You are on the science and math board, not on /x/.

>STFU and look up some scientific studies about it
Those do not support your point. Meditation is and remains by definition a spiritual exercise. Whether the effects of spirtuality are scientifically researched or not is irrelevant to the fact that the very practice of spirituality itself is /x/ material. By your retard reasoning religion would be /sci/ because the effects of religiosity are also being researched.

[Anonymous No.6065690]

>>6065675
I've got nothing more to say to you.

Don't like meditation? Good for you, this isn't what this thread is about, please leave.

[Anonymous No.6065693]

>>6065690
>this isn't what this thread is about
You came up with the derailing topic. I merely pointed out why you're wrong from a scientific point of view.

>please leave.
No, thanks. I am here for science and math. If you only come here to promote spirituality, /x/ might be a better place for you.

[Anonymous No.6065717]

>>6065693
>scientific point of view
>you
Top self lel. I meant leave this thread but you should also leave this board.

Wtf do you even know about science and math anyways? Probably still in your first real analysis class.

[Anonymous No.6065720]

I think it's pretty safe to say that nobody in this thread has any fucking idea what they are talking about.

Either way, the great thing about psychology is that it leads to drugs. Delicious, nutritious drugs that can help you get your shit together and start tackling socially acceptable things that would otherwise bore you to the point of browsing a shitty website like 4chan.

Whether you are meditating or stuffing benzos into your asshole, the whole endgame is to get you to buy as much bullcrap as possible until you start going outside and learning to deal with human beings and their social affairs.

So please, quit shit posting and make a decent argument for once you autistic, degenerate losers.

[Anonymous No.6065724]

The only real "psychology" is evolutionary psychology and that is based on neuroscience and evolutionary instincts, it's basically the key to understanding the human mind.

[Anonymous No.6065726]

>>6065481
No one thinks psychoanalysis is credible anymore. The "hardness" of psychology as a science depends on where you look in the field. Behavioral neuroscience is about as "hard" as you would consider pharmacology/neurophysiology. Social psych is much less of what I consider to be "traditional" science because their experiments are generally less subject to variable manipulation (due to ethics, mostly).

You made your point when you said you don't know much about psychology, because you clearly don't. Chemists don't give a fuck when someone brings up alchemy, so psychologists don't have a reason to care that you hate psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.6065728]

>>6065690
Hi, Ruben Aguirre!

[Anonymous No.6065731]

>>6065717
>Top self lel.
That doesn't make any sense.

>I meant leave this thread but you should also leave this board.
You are not in the position to tell me where to go. If I want to discuss the thread's topic. I'll stay here. Deal with it.

>Wtf do you even know about science and math anyways?
More than you. While you are a high schooler who watched Neil Tyson videos on youtube, I did in fact study science and math indepth.

>Probably still in your first real analysis class.
Is this what you consider higher math? Hilarious. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.6065734]

>>6065731
>this entire post

Nobody cares - please quit responding to the OP's pathetic attempts at making you look bad.

[Anonymous No.6065736]

Psychology isn't bullshit. They use the scientific method to find solutions. Thing is everyone is a unique individual and there are so many variables at play that most things are not concrete.

[Anonymous No.6065739]

Agreed. Psychology is not science. Its complete bullshit for the most part, and quite a bit is politically motivated.

[Anonymous No.6065743]

>>6065726
>so psychologists don't have a reason to care that you hate psychoanalysis
Well, they kinda do, don't they? I mean, the average joe on the street knows alchemy and chemistry aren't the same, do they not? Is the same true of psychoanalysis and psychology?

[Anonymous No.6065747]

>>6065743
>Is the same true of psychoanalysis and psychology?

Yes. Every kid who had secondary education knows the difference. Unless you're in america, where people also deny evolution.

[Anonymous No.6065750]

>>6065720
>>6065724
>>6065726


Thanks for the input. Like I said, I don't have much knowledge of psychology. I was wrong to tie in psychoanalysis in with it.

When I said I despise it, I was overreacting. It's just that the psyc majors t my school are such huge cunts that its hard not to developer a biased opinion after interacting with them

[Anonymous No.6065762]

>>6065481
Psychology PhDs who actually conduct research follow the scientific method just as well as any other branch of science.

Most counselors do not have degrees in psychology. They are either licensed social workers or psychiatrists.

If you're interested in some actual psychology experiments check out Dr. Zimbardo

[Anonymous No.6065766]

>>6065750
Psych majors are just wannabe physicians who will only have a job for as long as big pharma chooses to follow standard, medical ethics.

Let them be cunts, OP. They are the most delusional kinds of people.

[Anonymous No.6065768]

I agree with OP but dont' feel like shit flinging in this thread

yes, shit like ADHD and depression are a thing, but they are NOT 'mental disorders' that you are innately stuck with for life, and they can NOT be fixed with medication, only postponed.

To overcome something like ADD, or ADHD you have to start focusing and paying attention and overtime you will overcome it. not fucking Adderall/Ritalin

For depression, well maybe your life sucks. it's definitely a thing and you feel like shit all day, but until you fix the cause of your depressing state, of fucking COURSE you're going to be sad. meds aren't going to help it

psychology adequately describes states of minds of people and how they think, but those people are (most often) NOT subjected to a lifelong mental illness that they receive a free handicap for. They have to FIX their own shit jeez

now the 5% that are truly bipolar, Schizo, etc. I honestly feel bad for, but the majority of people with 'aspergers' and 'adhd' and 'chronic depression' aren't fucking mentally ill, they just need to get their shit together fucking hell

[Anonymous No.6065771]

>>6065573
Do you also deny climate change and evolution?

Despite your feelings, depression is a well documented disorder that can be observed and acted on.

[Anonymous No.6065776]

>>6065762
>Dr. Zimbardo
Dude better be wearing tight spandex and have a cape, or I'll be disappointed.

[Anonymous No.6065774]

>>6065768
>he still doesn't understand the difference between psychology and psychiatry even though it has been explained more than once ITT

Everyone look at this dumbass and laugh.

[Anonymous No.6065777]

>>6065731
>I studies science an math in depth
What did you study? What's the highest level or math, chemistry an physics do you know?

>doesn't know what top self lel means
How new are you?

[Anonymous No.6065779]

>>6065762
Psychology really advanced in the field of understanding how human thinking works. The complicated part is the efficiency that psychology would have to cure patients suffering from mental disorders.

[Anonymous No.6065780]

>>6065771
>Do you also deny climate change and evolution?
Evolution is scientific fact. Climate change is well-documented by scientific measurement. It's just not man-made.

>a well documented disorder
lol no

[Anonymous No.6065778]

>>6065599
>That sounds like a neurological disorder

Protip: Psychology and Neurology overlap.

[Anonymous No.6065783]

>>6065596
>>6065603

You sound like one of those guys who can't afford to show empathy because nobody showed you empathy.

Tell me anon, how does that make you feel?

[Anonymous No.6065782]

>>6065720
what this guy said

[Anonymous No.6065785]

>>6065664
>meditation is spiritual
what

[Anonymous No.6065786]

>>6065771
Depression is a symptom.

Calling it a "disorder" is typical psychiatric laziness, just bundling up symptoms without regard for their causes, and claiming they're all the same thing and should be treated the same way.

No wonder they never cure anyone.

[Anonymous No.6065787]

>>6065774
suck this dick
>>6065720

[Anonymous No.6065793]

>>6065776
Figures. Muh expectations, they b dust in the wind.

[Anonymous No.6065801]

>>6065780
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_depression

http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/depression-symptoms-and-types

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/depression/DS00175/DSECTION=causes

lol yes

Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.6065800]

Psychoanalysis, Freud, and other stupid stuff I don't consider real psychology
Neuroscience is what psychology should be

[Anonymous No.6065803]

>>6065786
Depression is a phenomenon

Weather or not it is a symptom is subjective to the situation.

[Anonymous No.6065816]

>>6065787
Drugging the population into submission as a substitute for fixing our real problems is much worse than allowing ourselves to be rationally dissatisfied and keeping the pressure on to make substantial change.

[Anonymous No.6065821]

>>6065783
Makes me feel aroused

I didn't deny depression, it's just that most people with it are full of shit and need to stop complaining. My friends, brother is not one of their people. He did way too much drugs in his youth and is now an emotional zombie despite having a good job and a 9/10 fuckbuddy. Besides him, everyone that I know and heard about with depression has external problems.

[Anonymous No.6065825]

>>6065786
>>6065803
The word "depression" when used in a clinical context, means a collection or complex of comorbid symptoms of believed common etiology. It is absolutely not a single symptom.

[Anonymous No.6065826]

>>6065750
I agree with you, psychology is bullshit and these statist universities fill it with marxism and other psudeoscience.

[Anonymous No.6065831]

>>6065816
This is true, but what are you going to do about it?

I'll tell you what I'm going to do about it - learn my fucking place, take my fucking drugs, and hope to god I don't get thrown in prison.

[Anonymous No.6065835]

>>6065826
There's no psychology in the Holy Bible.

[Anonymous No.6065836]

>>6065825
>It is absolutely not a single symptom.
Yes, that's why in real medicine (as opposed to psychiatry), "depression" is listed as a single symptom of many different, objectively verifiable, curable physical illnesses.

[Anonymous No.6065842]

>>6065836
You are confusing the symptom "depressed mood", with the disorder "depression".

Psychiatry is not the only branch of medicine that bundles up a bunch of comorbid symptoms of poorly understood etiology and calls it a single disease. Migraine, for example.

[Anonymous No.6065846]

>>6065842
But everyone involved knows and admits that migraines aren't properly understood and can't be treated very well.

For psychiatrists, *every* disorder is like this, and yet they demand the authority to "treat" (experiment on) patients against their will, based on their claimed expertise in and competence with these vaguely-defined disorders.

[Anonymous No.6065854]

>>6065777
>What did you study? What's the highest level or math, chemistry an physics do you know?
You wouldn't understand.

>How new are you?
I've been here all summer.

>>6065783
Those posts were not made by the same person.

[Anonymous No.6065860]

>>6065785
By definition.

>>6065800
>Neuroscience is what psychology should be
Neuroscience is only a part of psychology. Psychology is the study of human behaviour. Statistical studies are also part of psychology.

[Anonymous No.6065857]

>>6065854
>you wouldn't understand
Try me

[Anonymous No.6065863]

>>6065857
Try what?

[Anonymous No.6065864]

>>6065863
Tell me what you study/know

[Anonymous No.6065866]

>>6065864
My knowledge is too huge to be condensed into a single 4chan post.

[Anonymous No.6065868]

Well, that is a different issue. I was discussing whether these things are diseases, not the quality and ethics of treatment surrounding them.

My take on that would be psychiatry is in a state of infancy, emerging from pseudoscience, in a way similar to mainstream medicine 100 years ago.

Also, if someone is mentally incompetent, they get all kinds of things done without consent, including mainstream medical treatments.

[Anonymous No.6065870]

>>6065846
Well, that is a different issue. I was discussing whether these things are diseases, not the quality and ethics of treatment surrounding them.

My take on that would be psychiatry is in a state of infancy, emerging from pseudoscience, in a way similar to mainstream medicine 100 years ago.

Also, if someone is mentally incompetent, they get all kinds of things done without consent, including mainstream medical treatments.

[Anonymous No.6065873]

>>6065860
>Psychology is the study of human behaviour
No it isn't. The study of human behaviour is but one, albeit major, branch of psychology.

[Anonymous No.6065874]

>>6065581
>I was a normal teenager that self-diagnosed myself with depression

Depression is a neurochemical imbalance in the brain. Its symptoms include negative emotions, but it really has nothing to do with how you feel.

>>6065589
While meditation (relaxing, focused breathing, etc.) has proven health benefits, it would in no way "cure" depression. It could potentially help assuage the negative emotional impact of depression.

[Anonymous No.6065881]

>>6065821
>Besides him, everyone that I know and heard about with depression has external problems.

What person do you know has NO external problems?

[Anonymous No.6065882]

>>6065821
>external problems.
no one is claiming diseases are not caused by externals. most are in all of medicine.

[Anonymous No.6065890]

>>6065860
>neuroscience is a subset of psychology

Yeah the same way astronomy is a subset of astrology and chemistry is a subset of alchemy.

[Anonymous No.6065892]

>>6065890
Don't forget science is a subset of philopshy.

[Anonymous No.6065895]

>>6065874
>Depression is a neurochemical imbalance in the brain.
Oh god, the old "chemical imbalance" lie.

If it was really a chemical imbalance, they'd be able to:
a) diagnose it with physical tests, and
b) cure it, not just sort of maybe manage it in some cases with a success rate hard to distinguish from placebo effects, but actually reliably correct the symptoms.

Anyone who tells you a psychiatric disorder is a chemical imbalance is promoting pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.6065899]

>>6065890
You're comparing neuroscience to astrology or alchemy? Sounds accurate.

[Anonymous No.6065901]

>>6065899
>My lack of reading comprehension invalidates your argument.

[Anonymous No.6065902]

>>6065901
Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't ivalidate anything!

[Anonymous No.6065905]

>>6065901
What argument?

[Anonymous No.6065910]

>>6065899
Please reread that post again and realize how stupid you look right now. Like actually draw a diagram of what comparison is being drawn.

[Anonymous No.6065916]

>>6065910
>how stupid you look right now

Not that person. But I have to say he looks much much less stupid than the guy he was replying ot.

[Anonymous No.6065918]

>>6065910
I reread and I don't see anything wrong. Are you sure it's not you who has a problem with reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.6065919]

>>6065918
>>6065916
>>6065910
>>6065905
>>6065902
>>6065901
>>6065899
advanced faggotry

[Anonymous No.6065922]

>>6065919
>hurr, someone's being stupid, so everyone's equally stupid, even the people pointing out that it's stupid

[Anonymous No.6065923]

>>6065895
>Anyone who tells you a psychiatric disorder is a chemical imbalance is promoting pseudoscience.
humans are chemical beings, so any disorder is going to be chemical, whether mental or physical

[Anonymous No.6065925]

>>6065910
>Like actually draw a diagram of what comparison is being drawn.

done

[Anonymous No.6065926]

>>6065923
You heard it here first, folks: a broken leg is a chemical imbalance in the leg.

[Anonymous No.6065927]

>>6065922
pretty much. once things have got to the point of "no u" then smart people just move along

[Anonymous No.6065933]

>>6065926
i haven't used the word imbalance.

but do you accept that biochemistry is central to understanding of disease (not sure a fracture counts as a disease, btw)?

[Anonymous No.6065936]

>>6065925
Fixed.

Psychology is just applied neuroscience.

If you disagree you are seriously fucking retarded and don't belong here.

[Anonymous No.6065934]

>>6065927
You're right, everyone who points out specifically when someone is being stupid is an idiot, whereas when you point at everybody involved in a discussion where one person is being stupid and some other people are pointing it out and call them all idiots, you're making an intelligent and useful contribution.

[Anonymous No.6065938]

>>6065936
Neuroscience is a subfield of psychology and insults are not arguments. Please grow up, get your facts straight and learn to debate properly.

[Anonymous No.6065940]

>>6065933
>i haven't used the word imbalance.
You leapt to the defense of the word imbalance. Stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.6065944]

>>6065936
subject matter is irrelevant. whether scientific method is used is what matters.

if you use SM to study human cognition and behaviour then psychology is a science, if you don't use SM to do same then psychology is a pseudoscience

it isn't hard you know.

[Anonymous No.6065949]

>>6065938
>Neuroscience is a subfield of psychology
Psychology is a subfield of neuroscience.

Neuroscience comes first and explains the complex mechanics of how the brain works. Something psychology only tries and fails to do.

Take your popsci to /lit/

>>6065944
>if you use SM to study human cognition and behaviour then psychology is a science
That's like saying it's okay to use a banana to study human cognition and behavior.

[Anonymous No.6065953]

>>6065940
no, i leapt to the defence of chemistry, if imbalance means away from a norm that allows normal functioning, then i'm kinda ok with it

back to the question:

do you believe biochemistry is a central part to understanding disease?

[Anonymous No.6065955]

>>6065949
>That's like saying it's okay to use a banana to study human cognition and behavior.
How so?

[Anonymous No.6065956]

>>6065949
>Psychology is a subfield of neuroscience.
It is not. Human behaviour can be described and statistically researched without mapping the brain.

>Neuroscience comes first
Psychology came first. Do you even history of science?

>and explains the complex mechanics of how the brain works
Psychology explains human behaviour. Human behaviour can be described on more levels than just brain chemistry.

>Take your popsci to /lit/
This statement applies more to you than to me.

[Anonymous No.6065957]

>>6065955
>How so?
Psychology is a pretty worthless tool for understanding human behavior compared to neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.6065960]

>>6065957
That wasn't the point.

How is the application of the scientific method like the application of a banana?

[Anonymous No.6065963]

>>6065957
This is a claim. Please substantiate it with evidence or at least arguments. Please justify why statistical and observational methods are less useful in describing human behaviour than biochemistry.

[Anonymous No.6065964]

holy shit this thread

[Anonymous No.6065969]

>>6065963
he cannot. he's not defending his assertions using reasoned debate. he is behaving like the very pseudoscientists he claims to despise.

i suspect he is underageb&

[Anonymous No.6065971]

>>6065944
You can't just use something that vaguely looks like the scientific method, and call it science. It's very easy to do pseudoscience by formulating hypotheses and devising tests for them, see the "cargo cult science" essay.

Science relies on disciplined reasoning and parsimonious conclusions. You conclude from each experiment only what the results *demand*.

You don't see that in psychology. You see experiments which don't test the hypothesis, or you see a hypothesis that's weak and insignificant in the form tested, which is mysteriously transmuted into something profound and important in the form promoted on the basis of the test. You see statistical analysis of subjective impressions treated as promoting them to objective proof.

That's how they earn the pseudo- prefix to their science.

[Anonymous No.6065973]

>>6065956
>Human behaviour can be described and statistically researched without mapping the brain.
So? It can not be fully understood without understanding why these behaviors are happening, kid.

>Psychology came first. Do you even history of science?
Sorry, I meant to say neuroscience is more pure. Funny you're too stupid to understand reading comprehension.

>Psychology explains human behaviour.


>Human behaviour can be described on more levels than just brain chemistry.
Lol how? Brain chemistry explains everything, psychology explains very little. Psychology is like a magnifying glass while neuroscience is an electron microscope.

>This statement applies more to you than to me.
You're the one saying social sciences are superior to hard sciences. Go back to /lit/.

>>6065960
>How is the application of the scientific method like the application of a banana?
Not what I said or meant at all.

>>6065963
>Please justify why statistical and observational methods are less useful in describing human behaviour than biochemistry.
Because all of that stuff and more is stored in the brain. Psychology is more prone to mistakes, people behave in certain ways for a variety of reasons, the only real way to understand this is opening up the brain and seeing where the neural connection lead/come from.

[Anonymous No.6065976]

>>6065953
I know you think you're making a devastating argument now, but you're still just being too retarded to even talk to.

Come back when you stop thinking this is clever.

[Anonymous No.6065977]

>>6065964
Glorious, init?

[Anonymous No.6065978]

People who actually worship Sigmond Fraud coming on /sci/ and telling us we're not doing science.

lel

[Anonymous No.6065979]

>>6065971
>You can't use something that vaguely looks like the scientific method
No you can't. You use the actual scientific method. Please respond to the claims I actually make instead of this strawmanning.

>You don't see that in psychology.
Not my claim. My claim was that if you did, then psychology is a science, if you don't then it isn't. Do you even read posts to the end?

[Anonymous No.6065983]

>psychology is a science
>muh wymyns studies degree is just as valid as everyone elses

[Anonymous No.6065984]

>>6065481

My therapist let me know that they're required to provide a diagnosis at every session otherwise insurance won't pay for the visit. Also I'm pretty sure he learns more from talking to me than I learn from talking to him.

Psychiatrists only exist to dispense pills.

[Anonymous No.6065985]

>>6065925
>>6065918
>>6065916
>>6065899

Original comment was "Neuroscience is a subset of psychology the same way that astronomy is a subset of astrology and [the same way that] chemistry is a subset of alchemy"

I don't know why you retards keep thinking he's saying neuroscience is like alchemy or astrology, he's talking about psychology.

Go to /lit/ and read a fucking book

[Anonymous No.6065986]

>>6065973
>It can not be fully understood without understanding why these behaviors are happening
The behaviour can be explained on many levels, not just biochemistry.

>I meant to say neuroscience is more pure.
How is it more pure? They have trouble separating their field from philosophy. That's not very pure.

>Funny you're too stupid to understand reading comprehension.
Nice projection.

>Brain chemistry explains everything
String theory explains all of physics. Brain chemistry can be derived from here. Why would you even research that anymore?

>You're the one saying social sciences are superior to hard sciences.
I never made such a claim. Thank you for contributing more evidence of your impaired reading skills.

>Go back to /lit/.
I am already posting there. Why did you say that in a pejorative manner? Is literature too hard for you? Did you drop out of your literature class because of your poor reading comprehension?

>>6065976
Cry harder. Your hurt feelings are not relevant to science and math.

[Anonymous No.6065988]

>>6065973
>>How is the application of the scientific method like the application of a banana?
>Not what I said or meant at all.
it was what you said, maybe look back at what you said.

so i'll ask again, if the scientific method is applied, properly, to human behavior and cognition, would you accept such activity as science?

[Anonymous No.6065987]

>>6065985
>not using the quote function
wy no green text m8?

[Anonymous No.6065991]

>>6065985
We corrected his typo because it only makes sense by assuming he is talking about neuroscience and not psychology.

[Anonymous No.6065993]

>>6065984
>My therapist let me know that they're required to provide a diagnosis at every session otherwise insurance won't pay for the visit.
"I did it for money." is never an excuse for unethical behavior.

Making an unjustified psychiatric diagnosis to get an insurance payment is extremely unethical.

[Anonymous No.6065997]

>>6065991
This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on 4chan, including /b/.

[Anonymous No.6065998]

>>6065993
>"I did it for money." is never an excuse for unethical behavior.

It is. Money is more important than ethics.

[Anonymous No.6065995]

>>6065976
Debate properly and rationally or try /x/ or something.

So, can you answer my question?

[Anonymous No.6066002]

>>6065986
>The behavior can be explained on many levels
But you don't get the full explanation with psychology and it's much more prone to errors.

No, psychology cannot explain anything. Neuroscience actually tells us the whole picture.

>They have trouble separating their field from philosophy.
WHAT?
You're thinking of psychology.
It's incredible you're dumb enough to think this. Take your soft science elsewhere.

>Nice projection.
Nice hardcore projection.

>Brain chemistry can be derived from here.
So? That's like saying we should only study math because everything is derived from it.

>Is literature too hard for you?
Is hard sciences too hard for you. Last time I checked /lit/ is filled with sophistry and marxism.

Lol go back to your pseudoscientific shithole.

[Anonymous No.6066003]

>>6065997
>has no arguments
>resorts to childish insults along the lines of "ur stoopid"

Serious question: How old are you?

[Anonymous No.6066004]

>>6065988
>to human behavior and cognition,
It depends on how it is applied and what tools are used.

Fuck you /lit/fags are retarded. Go back and read my post.

[Anonymous No.6066006]

>lol neuroscience isn't science but my conspiracies and marxism are

/x/ and /lit/ please go

[Anonymous No.6066010]

>>6066002
>No, psychology cannot explain anything. Neuroscience actually tells us the whole picture.
You keep saying it doesn't make it so.

it is akin to the claim that physics explains chemistry and therefore biology

it is true in principle but mostly useless in practice because you can't possibloy compute the wave function of a human.

as you grow up you'll stop holding silly extreme views and become more of a pragmatist

[Anonymous No.6066011]

>>6066002
>But you don't get the full explanation with psychology
How do you know what's the full explanation?

>and it's much more prone to errors.
How so?

>No, psychology cannot explain anything.
It has a lot of explanatory models.

>Neuroscience actually tells us the whole picture.
Neuroscience only shows biochemical changes in the brain. That's not the whole picture.

>WHAT?
So you don't even know anything about neuroscience?

>You're thinking of psychology.
Nope. Psychology is based on empirical observation. This is the most pure form of applying the scientific method.

>It's incredible you're dumb enough to think this. Take your soft science elsewhere.
I am talking about hard science and I am not stupid.

>So? That's like saying we should only study math because everything is derived from it.
Exactly.

>Is hard sciences too hard for you.
Unlike you I studied hard science.

>Last time I checked /lit/ is filled with sophistry and marxism.
You checked wrong/

>Lol go back to your pseudoscientific shithole.
I stay on /sci/ because I want to talk about science. If you want to talk about pseudoscience, /x/ is the right place for you.

[Anonymous No.6066013]

>>6066006
I think everyone here agrees that neuroscience is a legitimate science. We don't agree that psychology is a science though(because its not)

[Anonymous No.6066015]

ITT - Neuroscience vs psychology.

[Anonymous No.6066017]

>>6066003
He is definitely a high schooler. So butt mad entrenched. I wish he realised this idealogical approuch was exactly that which led to poor science.

[Anonymous No.6066019]

>>6066011
>That's not the whole picture.

What else is there? Magic?

[Anonymous No.6066021]

>>6066013
>I think everyone here agrees that neuroscience is a legitimate science.
A "science" that can't even properly differentiate its scope from philosophy and metaphysics surely cannot be taken seriously.

>We don't agree that psychology is a science though(because its not)
It uses the scientific method. That makes it a science.

[Anonymous No.6066026]

>>6066004
I said how, "properly". If you aren't sure what the scientific method is then look it up.

Fifth time I'll ask. If the scientific method is applied, properly-correctly-rigorously, to subject X, then is subject X a science?

[Anonymous No.6066029]

>>6066019
You refer to social interaction as "magic" because you don't understand it? That's pretty pathetic.

[Anonymous No.6066030]

>>6065866
>>6065863
>>6065854
>>6065731

hahaha, what a bullshitting fagit you are

[Anonymous No.6066034]

>>6066011
>Nope. Psychology is based on empirical observation. This is the most pure form of applying the scientific method.

top lel. You forgot the part where they make an unfalsifiable claim about their observations after that, negating the scientific process completely.

[Anonymous No.6066036]

>>6066015
It's not, that's the whole point

We have 1 or 2 edgy high schoolers saying there is only neuroscience, all else is BS, and we have a few reasonable people that say any science done properly is valid way to discover the truth. I'm pretty sure no one is attacking neuroscience, just attacking the idiots who claim it is the only way.

[Anonymous No.6066037]

>>6066034
>You forgot the part where they make an unfalsifiable claim about their observations after that, negating the scientific process completely.

This is what neuroscientists do frequently.

[Anonymous No.6066041]

>>6066034
>they
every science has bullshitters in it. neuro included

[Anonymous No.6066043]

>>6066037
>This is what neuroscientists do frequently.
Yes, and Psychologists.

If we judge a science by the worst of its practitioners then all is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6066044]

>>6066021
>A "science" that can't even properly differentiate its scope from philosophy and metaphysics surely cannot be taken seriously.
Stop cherry picking neuroscience. Every science with theory can't do this including psychology.

>It uses the scientific method. That makes it a science.
Experiments aren't part of the scientific method? Troll harder.

[Anonymous No.6066045]

>>6066036
>We have 1 or 2 edgy high schoolers saying there is only neuroscience
They are saying that psychology is a subset of neuroscience.
I don't see how that turns into there only being neurosceince.

[Anonymous No.6066046]

>>6066041
>neuro included

Neuro has more of them than any other field.

[Anonymous No.6066047]

>>6066010
>You keep saying it doesn't make it so.
I already explained why it does, are you really this stupid.

You can find out the exact reason why humans do what they do by understanding their neural networks, eventually yes, we will find out way more than your bullshit psychology.

>it is akin to the claim that physics explains chemistry and therefore biology
It does, they are just applied versions of each other.

Psychology is prone to countless mistakes and is pretty useless as far as analyzing human behavior is concerned.

>silly extreme views
Evolution and neuroscience are extreme now?

>>6066011
>How do you know what's the full explanation?
You can analyze the neural networks and see what they make humans do. You can trace back to the reason they did something by seeing where and what part of the brain it came from and what it's exact function is.

>How so?
>It has a lot of explanatory models.
Yet they've mostly been proven to be junk and simple guessing.

>That's not the whole picture.
Yes it is, the data is fucking there we just need to decode it.

>Psychology is based on empirical observation.
Nope, that's neuroscience.
Also you may observe something but unless you have a real theory for how it works(neuroscience) it's useless.

>I am talking about hard science and I am not stupid.
>muh social science degree

>You checked wrong/
Really? It's not a leftist shithole?
Lel

[Anonymous No.6066049]

>>6066041
Psych has more than most. There is a whole set of bumbling master psychs who were top of the field while making said claims. Sad part is, a lot of their work is still taken as a given.

[Anonymous No.6066052]

>>6066046
No, medicine and pharm has the most bullshit in it. Read Ben Goldacre for proof. Medicine and pharm are still valid things though

[Anonymous No.6066054]

yeah, to be fair most neuroscientists into psychology. So Neuroscience cant be that great.

[Anonymous No.6066055]

>>6066021
>A "science" that can't even properly differentiate its scope from philosophy and metaphysics surely cannot be taken seriously.
>BUT MUH PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL

Dat projection and low quality bait.

[Anonymous No.6066058]

>>6066047
>You can analyze the neural networks and see what they make humans do. You can trace back to the reason they did something by seeing where and what part of the brain it came from and what it's exact function is.
This did not answer my question and is in fact completely unrelated. Did you not understand what I was asking?

>Yet they've mostly been proven to be junk and simple guessing.
[citation needed]

>Nope, that's neuroscience.
And psychology. Empirical observation and statistical data are objective.

>Also you may observe something but unless you have a real theory for how it works(neuroscience) it's useless.
Neuroscience does not explain how it works. Psychology is needed to form an explanatory model.

>>muh social science degree
I do not have a social science degree. Are you projecting?

>Really? It's not a leftist shithole?
You do not even know what "leftist" means.

[Anonymous No.6066061]

>>6066055
>no argument presented

post dismissed

[Anonymous No.6066066]

>>6066021
>A "science" that can't even properly differentiate its scope from philosophy and metaphysics surely cannot be taken seriously.

Your right, synapses, neural networks and action potential and all the complex mathematics involved doesn't exist.

But your "DREAM INTERPRETATIONS" do.

Seriously go back to /x/ kid.

[Anonymous No.6066068]

>>6066047
I see that you aren't acquainted with the complexity problem. This explains your misguided zealotry.

Here it is:

A sufficiently complex system cannot be understood by an analysis of its components and their interactions.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Anonymous No.6066078]

>>6066061
You had no argument, my post had one even though I called you a retard.

>>6066058
>This did not answer my question
Yes I did.

>[citation needed]
Sigmund Freud
Carl Jung

>Empirical observation and statistical data are objective.
It's worthless is it doesn't prove anything and isn't as accurate as a more pure science that studies why humans act the way they do directly.

>Neuroscience does not explain how it works.
Except it does. Psychology is just advanced guessing with no real reason for the theories.

>Are you projecting?
Your projection is quite visible.

>You do not even know what "leftist" means.
I clearly do.

[Anonymous No.6066081]

>>6066066
>Your right
My right? What right are you talking about?

>synapses, neural networks and action potential and all the complex mathematics involved doesn't exist.
What complex mathematics? Do you really think calculus is complex?

>But your "DREAM INTERPRETATIONS" do.
If you weren't impaired in your reading comprehension, you would have read the thread before replying. It has been pointed out several times that psychology and psychoanalysis are not the same thing and that nobody in psychology takes psychoanalysis serious.

>Seriously go back to /x/ kid.
Why? Because you want me to reply to your "how to summon a sucubus" thread over there?

[Anonymous No.6066083]

HAY GUISE ALL OF THIS NEUROSCIENCE IS TOO HARD AND COMPLEX FOR ME

IT'S JUST PSEUDOSCIENCE ANYWAY XD

SOCIOLOGY IS THE ONLY REAL SCIENCE, EVERYTHING IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

[Anonymous No.6066085]

>>6066078
>Sigmund Freud
>Carl Jung
they were self-styled psychoanalysts, by training medical doctors, they were not psychologists.

even if they were, every science has historical idiots in it. it's not an argument against current psychology

[Anonymous No.6066086]

>>6066078
>You had no argument
It isn't my fault you didn't understand it. But given the fact that you admitted ITT how you never read a book in your entire life, it doesn't surprise me.

>my post had one
Appeal to emotion is not an argument.

>Yes I did.
No, it did not. Apparently you did not understand the question.

>Sigmund Freud
>Carl Jung
Those are not taken serious in psychology.

>It's worthless is it doesn't prove anything
It can prove or disprove a hypothesis.

>and isn't as accurate as a more pure science that studies why humans act the way they do directly.
You mean a pure science like psychology?

>Except it does. Psychology is just advanced guessing
Psychology is application of the scientific method.

>Your projection is quite visible.
What projection?

>I clearly do.
Define it.

[Anonymous No.6066087]

>>6066068
>A sufficiently complex system cannot be understood by an analysis of its components and their interactions.
Yes it can and it already is.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

>>6066085
>they were self-styled psychoanalysts, by training medical doctors, they were not psychologists.
They basically made psychology into what it is today.

>even if they were, every science has historical idiots in it.
90% of psychology is filled with idiots

[Anonymous No.6066090]

psy is hard science.

unfortunately it cant be taken seriously.

its glaringly apparent to even a desktop scientist that there should be patterns of predictable behavior and response.

because thats how it works in any other species.

but saying that,

the norms of psychology 2013 are probably a slight of hand.

no offence.

[Anonymous No.6066095]

>>6066083
>emotion is the same section as planning and judgement

Then why am I so bad at emotions?

[Anonymous No.6066098]

Math > Physics > Chem = biology = Comp Sci > shit > All the arts > Neuroscience > Burned alive > having a sword rammed right up your bumhole > Psychology

[Anonymous No.6066099]

>>6066087
>math is wrong on complexity theory
>psychoanalysis is mainstream psychology
>other obvious and verifiable falsehoods
ok, my bad, i just realise you are trolling. pray continue

[Anonymous No.6066101]

>>6066081
>calculus is the only math involved
confirmed retarded

Neuroscience is clearly too difficult for you, so you opted for a soft science.

>>6066086
>It isn't my fault you didn't understand it. But given the fact that you admitted ITT how you never read a book in your entire life, it doesn't surprise me.
I guarantee you had no real argument.

>Appeal to emotion is not an argument.
Yes, why do you continue to do it.
Sorry you couldn't be a neuroscientist like the big boys in your school.

>It can prove or disprove a hypothesis.
So? You will come to the wrong conclusions if you don;t understand how the system works.
Neuroscience is like watching an explosion and describing all of the chemical reactions involved and how big the explosion will be.
Psychology is looking a the explosion and going "oh look explosions happen"/


>Define it.
It's a term that's lost it's meaning but in general it's used to describe socialists, marxists, feminists, left anarchists(lel), egalitarians etc

[Anonymous No.6066103]

>>6066095

why cant i hold all these... emotions.

[Anonymous No.6066107]

>>6066095
>>emotion is the same section as planning and judgement
lol i no rite.

the brain doesn't exist only social constructions and behavior do

anything that contradicts my delusions i continue to believe

[Anonymous No.6066108]

>>6066098
Math is an art.

[Anonymous No.6066109]

>>6066099
>thinking complexity theory really applies here

Yes, you can understand any system by understanding it's basic parts and how they interact with each other.


Holy fucking shit can you retards please go back to reddit.

You're not convincing anyone about psychology and your delusions.

[Anonymous No.6066112]

>this whole thread

Oh how I love my physics degree.

[Anonymous No.6066113]

Psychology is boring as fuck compared to understanding how the brain actually works and why humans do what they do.

[Anonymous No.6066115]

>>6066099
You don't even know what complexity theory is.

[Anonymous No.6066116]

>>6066108
>math is an art
top lel

[Anonymous No.6066118]

>>6066101
>Neuroscience is clearly too difficult for you, so you opted for a soft science.
I did not opt for a soft science and I am clearly too smart for neuroscience. I put my intelligence to better use than looking at brain pictures at speculating about metaphysical conclusions regarding free will or qualia.

>I guarantee you had no real argument.
That's because you did not understand it.

>Sorry you couldn't be a neuroscientist like the big boys in your school.
See my first answer in this post.

>So? You will come to the wrong conclusions if you don;t understand how the system works.
That's why you have to use the scientific method, like psychology does.

>Neuroscience is like watching an explosion and describing all of the chemical reactions involved and how big the explosion will be.
No, neuroscience is more like looking at the chemicals and then concluding that they prove metaphysical events.

>Psychology is looking a the explosion and going "oh look explosions happen"
Then how can it be wrong? Objective description of empirical observation is the most imporant step in science.

>It's a term that's lost it's meaning
Only because retards like you abuse it as a buzzword.

[Anonymous No.6066121]

>>6066098
>biology
>hard science

[Anonymous No.6066124]

>>6066109
>Yes, you can understand any system by understanding it's basic parts and how they interact with each other.
Not the anon you are arguing with, but this is plainly not true. For example, we understand how molecules interact, but we don't understand turbulent flow.

Not sure where you got the idea otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6066128]

>>6066109
>Yes, you can understand any system by understanding it's basic parts and how they interact with each other.
Ahem, chaos theory.

[Anonymous No.6066131]

>>6066124
>but we don't understand turbulent flow.
But with advanced computers that input the laws of how molecules interact we will.

[Anonymous No.6066132]

>>6066124
That's a limit of computational power and a lack of computable approximation schemes.

[Anonymous No.6066136]

>>6066109
>Yes, you can understand any system by understanding it's basic parts and how they interact with each other.
But I understand chemistry. How come I don't understand women?

Seriously though, that's a ludicrous claim. Even in as simple a system as arithmetic Godel proved there are unknowable truths.

[Anonymous No.6066140]

>>6066131
No, because of chaos theory. A finite error in initial conditions, in a finite time, leads to categorical changes in output.

Complexity is a very fundamental problem,

[Anonymous No.6066143]

>>6066132
No, it is a mathematical limit in principle, not one of comp power. Srsly, look it up.

[Anonymous No.6066146]

>>6066118
>I did not opt for a soft science
Psychology is a soft science, it's maybe on the level of womans studies or a social work degree if you're lucky.

>and I am clearly too smart for neuroscience
Yet you're dumb enough to basically say neurons and synapses don't exist. lel

>speculating about metaphysical conclusions regarding free will or qualia.
That's what social scientists like yourself do. We don't even believe in free will.

>That's because you did not understand it.
Because you had no argument.

>That's why you have to use the scientific method
Psychology comes to the wrong conclusions all the time, they fail at the scientific method. Like half of them don't apply evolution or instincts to the human brain. The only real psychologists are evolutionary psychologists like Steven Pinker, but he would be more on the neuroscience side.

>that they prove metaphysical events.
Except nobody in neuroscience does this at all? Is that all you have, projections?

>Objective description of empirical observation
Psychology is hardly objective, tons of them still believe all human behavior is socially constructed.

>Only because retards like you abuse it as a buzzword.
Nah, leftists did that themselves.

[Anonymous No.6066150]

>>6066143
You are completely fucking retarded. The theory and equations of turbulent flow are independent of initial conditions.

[Anonymous No.6066151]

>>6066136
>But I understand chemistry. How come I don't understand women?
Because science hasn't come that far yet. It will though, eventually.

Also neuroscience has already shown the massive differences between male and female brains.

[Anonymous No.6066152]

>>6066146
>The only real psychologists
So you admit psychology can be done right?

[Anonymous No.6066155]

>>6066136

you cant understand women until your married.
..and then your kids wont understand you.

[Anonymous No.6066157]

>>6066152
I never said it didn't.

All I ever said was neuroscience is more pure and that 90% of psychology is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6066162]

>>6066150
Although it is possible to find some particular solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations governing fluid motion, all such solutions are unstable to finite perturbations at large Reynolds numbers. Sensitive dependence on the initial and boundary conditions makes fluid flow irregular both in time and in space so that a statistical description is needed.

lol u fail

the analogy here would be that stats description is psychology, where the analysis of the PDE would be neuro

[Anonymous No.6066163]

>>6066152
As long as you admit neuroscience can be done.

As it obviously can.

[Anonymous No.6066165]

>>6066157
>is more pure
It isn't. Drawing baseless metaphysical conclusions based on brain pictures is not just not pure, but not even science at all.

>and that 90% of
Where did you pull that number out of your ass?

[Anonymous No.6066170]

>>6066151
>It will though, eventually.
No, it is fairly easy to show that as complexity increases, computation power needed to model that complexity increases at a far more rapid rate. Relatively modest increases in complexity soon more computing power than could ever exist in the entire universe.

[Anonymous No.6066180]

>>6066157
Then it is a tedious my team is better than yours argument. I would rather argue about the principles of the matter, as I am with the idiot who thinks complexity isn't a real, in principle, problem,

[Anonymous No.6066181]

>>6066162
Such an approximation scheme would emulate turbulent flow and be independent of initial conditions. Can you not read?

[Anonymous No.6066183]

>>6066163
I have never knocked neuroscience, I am a pragmatist not some silly teenage zealot. Every science has strengths and its limits, every science can be done well or poorly.

[Anonymous No.6066184]

>>6066165
>It isn't.
Of course it is.

>Drawing baseless metaphysical conclusions
Nobody fucking does this except the retards you see on /x/.

Stop making bullshit up because you have no argument and are too stupid to understand how neurons work.

>based on brain pictures
top fucking lel

I guess gaba subunits and action potentials are just "brain pitksures XD"

god dammit I've never met a retard as big as you, seriously

Go back to your SOFT SCIENCE.

>Where did you pull that number out of your ass?
No, just type into google "psychology bullshit" and you'll see for yourself.

Countless loads of them don't even believe in human nature/instincts.

>>6066170
>No, it is fairly easy to show that as complexity increases, computation power needed to model that complexity increases at a far more rapid rate.
So? Do you know how powerful computers are going to be in 40 years from now?

We will eventually be able to simulate a brain.

Also "we won't be able to fully understand it using our tools" is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.6066188]

>>6066180
The brain is complex, it's not that complex, at least not your brain. We will obviously be able to understand it.

This is where the cutting edge of science is right now and where all the jobs are going to be in the near future.

Not worthless psychology(we will be able to debunk most of what psychology says by learning how the brain works).

[Anonymous No.6066191]

>>6066181
yes, and that statistical approximation is exactly what psychology is when compared to the non approximate neuroscience.

touché

[Anonymous No.6066192]

>>6066188

mfw the only unit i failed is psychoneuropharmacology.

relevant thread for once.

also actually wrote the wrong answer, research is not an answer.

the answer is the answer.

[Anonymous No.6066194]

>>6066184
>Also "we won't be able to fully understand it using our tools" is not an argument.
Really? What do you think science is exactly?
Your childish cartoon speaks for itself tho.

[Anonymous No.6066196]

>>6065481
I went there.
If you want to understand real stuff about human mind look for ethology, cognitive science and neuroscience.
Everything else is complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6066198]

>>6066191
Not at all, there are dozens of branches of neuroscience that range from the study of system at the molecular level to the pathology of mental disorders to the evolution of nervous tissues in an entire phylum. The difference between psychology and neuroscience is that the first is largely borderline pseudoscientific and quasi-experimental speculation on population studies while the other has some form of scientific rigor replacing what psychologists should study academically like cognitive neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.6066206]

>>6066184
>So? Do you know how powerful computers are going to be in 40 years from now?
No, but at the most optimistic rate of increase they still won't be able to model the weather more than 6 days in advance to our current 5 day standards of accuracy, there is a near brick wall of computational power requirement in sufficiently complex systems.
>We will eventually be able to simulate a brain.
And the brain is more complex than the weather.

[Anonymous No.6066214]

>>6066188
>it's not that complex
it's about the most complex thing we know of.
>at least not your brain
stay classy

[Anonymous No.6066220]

>>6066198
>The difference between psychology and neuroscience is that the first is largely borderline pseudoscientific and quasi-experimental speculation on population studies while the other has some form of scientific rigor replacing what psychologists should study academically like cognitive neuroscience.
This is a reverese no true scotsman argument, and perhaps a semantic one of what we mean by "psychology" or "neuroscience".

If to you that latter means the former done with scientific rigour, then I have no real argument with you, only one of what we call things, which is a tedious one.

[Anonymous No.6066223]

>>6066198
So you are effectively just renaming all these fields to remove their murky history and practices?

[Anonymous No.6066226]

>>6065724
this^

[Anonymous No.6066228]

>>6066198
>The difference between
This is a difference of practice and not principle, and of little interest except to those that enjoy the tribal.

[Anonymous No.6066232]

>>6065724
>>6066226
>evolutionary psychology
>not the worst of the worst of pseudoscience
Here is the average evolutionary psychologist working method:
step 1: "Why didn't Sally want to go out with me? Why didn't my department director promote me?"
step 2: Invent a little story with cavemen that reflects more or less the situation
step 3: Is it convincing? Time to publish.

[Anonymous No.6066229]

>>6066194
>Your childish cartoon speaks for itself tho.

What's the problem, never heard of xkcd?

You must be REALLY new here.

>>6066206
>No, but at the most optimistic rate of increase they still won't be able to model the weather more than 6 days in advance to our current 5 day standards of accuracy, there is a near brick wall of computational power requirement in sufficiently complex systems.

>it's not a science because I think we will never have the technology powerful enough to understand it using your methods(which are the only methods for truly understanding it)
That's not an argument.

[Anonymous No.6066236]

ITT: Pathetic psychology/sociology majors butthurt about their degrees pathetically try to take down hard sciences using awful arguments.

[Anonymous No.6066238]

>>6065481
I agree with you OP

and that is all

[Anonymous No.6066239]

>>6066229
>What's the problem
It's childish and denotes a fundamental incomprehension of the research process.
>never heard of xkcd?
Way too often actually.

>he thinks biologist only do deductions from chemistry which only do deductions from quantum physics which only does deduction from high energy physics
In the real words of science, that's not how it happens.

[Anonymous No.6066242]

>>6066146
>Psychology is a soft science, it's maybe on the level of womans studies or a social work degree if you're lucky.
Only in murrica.

>Yet you're dumb enough to basically say neurons and synapses don't exist. lel
I never said this.

>That's what social scientists like yourself do.
I am not a social scientist and what I described is neuroscience.

>We don't even believe in free will.
Science is not a matter of belief.

>Because you had no argument.
I posted the argument. you failed to address it.

>Psychology comes to the wrong conclusions all the time, they fail at the scientific method.
The hypotheses of psychology are testable. Some get disproved, others get proved.

>Like half of them don't apply evolution or instincts to the human brain.
Not all theories need to work on the level of biology.

>Except nobody in neuroscience does this at all? Is that all you have, projections?
Sam Harris does.

>Psychology is hardly objective, tons of them still believe all human behavior is socially constructed.
Observations are objective. Social causation is just an abstraction biological causation. Is abstraction too hard for you?

>Nah, leftists did that themselves.
What kind of "leftists"? Leftists in the original meaning or people you incorrectly label as "leftists" because they disagree with your immature world view?

[Anonymous No.6066249]

>>6065481
>Worst of all, psychology majors are the most pretentious cunts that you've ever seen

So is all of /sci/

Honestly every single thread is basically people trying to look superior over one another on a website that is completely anonymous

Why can't we just get along?

[Anonymous No.6066247]

>>6066232
Awwww, the pseudoscientist thinks his opinions are valid.

This is more accurate:
Leftist social scientist's working method:
step 1: Why am I so poor, why doesn't anybody like me.
step 2: They're SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED to think that way, there's no way I'm really this pathetic.
step 3: Time to publish and use the power of the state to force my retarded views on society.

SRS it's time to go.

Don't get so mad that we're actually doing real science you fucking creationist.

[Anonymous No.6066248]

>>6066220
>>6066223
>>6066228
Have you ever seen a computational model of depression with a giant fucking neural network, a rhesus monkey model of 5-HT/dopamine defects signaling leading to anxiety-like symptoms, a knockout mouse model of PTSD, or maybe an n=500 morphometry study on grey matter volume loss in schizophrenia published in a psychology journal? I think not.

[Anonymous No.6066254]

>>6066184
>Of course it is.
Science becomes less pure when mixed up with metaphysics.

>Nobody fucking does this except the retards you see on /x/.
Neuroscientists are "retards you see on /x/"?

>Stop making bullshit up because you have no argument and are too stupid to understand how neurons work.
I did not make up anything and I do understand how neurons work.

>top fucking lel
Not even joking. They are basically doing the same as astrologists.

>I guess gaba subunits and action potentials are just "brain pitksures XD"
Am I wrong in assuming that neuroscience deals with the brain? Please correct me.

>god dammit I've never met a retard as big as you, seriously
I am of above average intelligence. Keep projecting.

>Go back to your SOFT SCIENCE.
I do not engage in any soft science.

>No, just type into google "psychology bullshit" and you'll see for yourself.
Teenagers' blogs are scientific sources now? top lel

>Countless loads of them don't even believe in human nature/instincts.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6066256]

>There are people who think psychoanalysis is still relevant to psychology
>There are people who think neuroscience and psychology don't overlap

This thread is fucking gold.

[Anonymous No.6066258]

>>6066247
>evopsy faggot who thinks he has anything to say about pseudoscience
I'm not even the guy you're arguing with.
I just saw a dumbass claiming evopsy was a science while in reality it's the worst of trash pop-sci shit.

You probably go around inventing little stories with cavemen yourself and thinking you're doing science.
Absolute kek.

[Anonymous No.6066259]

>>6066256
>psychology
>neuroscience
pick one

[Anonymous No.6066262]

>>6066229
>That's not an argument.
It's not as you put it. "I think" isn't correct.

Here's a crude mathematical explanation about how the most wildly optimistic predictions for computing power will not be enough

You work out that x extra accuracy/complexity costs 2^(2^x) computer power

x = 8 gives the number of baryons in the observable universe

the numbers get very big very fast

[Anonymous No.6066265]

I think we can all agree that MBTI is scientific.

[Anonymous No.6066266]

>>6066247
>hurrr this behavior is explained by this stuff early humans did
>how the fuck do you know that? We have very few elements to know their lifestyle, and most of what we say about it is based on inferences based on the way modern humans behave. So really it's just a very circular argument and not enlightening in any way
>I don't care lol, it just sounds good

[Anonymous No.6066267]

>>6066259
While they aren't the same thing, they definitely do overlap. Unless you're trying to tell me that disorders like schizophrenia, aphasia, etc subjects of interest for both areas in one way or another and that neuroscience isn't often used to support psychology.

[Anonymous No.6066268]

>>6066248
I am not arguing for or against psychology. I am arguing about the limitations of simulations and computing power. All those models may be valid, but they are crude compared to the fanciful claims being made in this thread about perfect sims of brains in 40 years.

[Anonymous No.6066269]

>>6066265
Don't forget collective unconsciousness! Lots of science behind that too

[Anonymous No.6066272]

>>6065560
>>6065553
I'm actually a psych grad student doing my thesis on Butthurt variations, and I have to disagree.
There are several Thallsian Butthurt indicators, but chief and most universal is his additive agreement "Apparently you have none at all" which adds nothing to the conversation.
But you're right goys, it's very low level, 48 at most on the Chorovsky rectal irritation scale.

[Anonymous No.6066273]

>>6066239
>It's childish and denotes a fundamental incomprehension of the research process.
Nah it just makes you angry and is completely accurate.

>>he thinks biologist only do deductions from chemistry which only do deductions from quantum physics which only does deduction from high energy physics
Never said that at all.

>>6066242
>I never said this.
Yes you did, you're really that retarded.

>and what I described is neuroscience.
No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.

>I posted the argument. you failed to address it.
No, you posted no argument. If you had an argument, you would be telling me what your original argument was instead of whining.

>The hypotheses of psychology are testable.
No they are not. You run the same test countless times and can come to different conclusions, there are countless things going on the brain(which you basically don't believe exists) that could change the outcome of your "experiments" yet you fail to understand what they are.

>Not all theories need to work on the level of biology.
LOL WHAT?

We're talking about human instincts here are you ACTUALLY saying they don't exist?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OH MAN, IT'S OVER

You can go back to /lit/ now.

>Sam Harris does.
So? Just because one does this in his spare time doesn't mean that's what the science is based off of.
Is that really how childish and flawed your arguments are?

>Social causation is just an abstraction biological causation.
That's not a sentence.

>Leftists in the original meaning
Original meaning.

[Anonymous No.6066277]

>>6066265
>>6066269
Why do people always think that shitty pop-psych is relevant?

[Anonymous No.6066275]

>>6066268
They work, they the job done, and they have contributed more to neuropharmacology and the treatment of mental disorders than any garbage in psychology ever has.

[Anonymous No.6066279]

>>6066248
That's my point, you are arguing about how psychology is practised and how neuroscience is practised. And how these should be named. It's of no interest to me what things are called.

I am interested in how we can study brain and behaviour scientifically at many levels, not what we call such endeavours.

[Anonymous No.6066281]

>>6066279
Then you're definitely not interested in academic psychology. ATM it's worse than theology.

[Anonymous No.6066283]

>>6066258
>it's the worst of trash pop-sci shit.
Except it's the leading edge of psychology right now.

Keep crying over the fact we destroy you in debates.

I bet your one of those social constructionists.

>You probably go around inventing little stories with cavemen yourself and thinking you're doing science.
Yeah no, you are instinctively mad right now.

>>6066266
>>hurrr this behavior is explained by this stuff early humans did
>hurrr instincts, what are those durrrrrrr

>everything is a social construct because I said so

>what's that dogs are behaving in a certain way regardless of their owner
>STILL A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

[Anonymous No.6066284]

>>6066273
>Yes you did, you're really that retarded.
I did not.

>No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.

>No, you posted no argument. If you had an argument, you would be telling me what your original argument was instead of whining.
I told you. It is not my fault you did not understand it.

>No they are not.
Yes, they are.

>You run the same test countless times
That's what we call statistics.

>and can come to different conclusions,
Nope.

>there are countless things going on the brain(which you basically don't believe exists) that could change the outcome of your "experiments" yet you fail to understand what they are.
That's why we need more psychological experiments and tests.

>LOL WHAT?
Does quantum physics work on the basis of biology?

>We're talking about human instincts here are you ACTUALLY saying they don't exist?
I never said this.

>OH MAN, IT'S OVER
What is over? Your garbage posting?

>You can go back to /lit/ now.
I will stay on /sci/.

>So? Just because one does this in his spare time doesn't mean that's what the science is based off of.
Unfortunately a lot of neuroscientists mix up their research with metaphysics.

>That's not a sentence.
Yes, it is. Please learn to read.

>Original meaning.
What is the original meaning?

[Anonymous No.6066290]

>>6066262
>It's not as you put it. "I think" isn't correct.
That's not even what we were arguing about in the first place.

Also you don't need to understand the entire human brain to understand how certain segments interact with one another and thus how humans behave.

[Anonymous No.6066288]

>>6066275
Sure, but they aren't evidence we can sim the brain at the level being claimed in this thread, which seemed to be molecular level sim of entire brain.

[Anonymous No.6066297]

>>6066275
The evidence shows CBT and pharms are equal in depression management. Most effective is to combine both. I know you have your prejudices, we all do, but please be scientific enough to not let them get in the way of high quality evidence.

[Anonymous No.6066300]

Evolutionary psychology is the closest psych has come to being science in a long while, and with neuroscience being a thing, I think it will eventually drift towards being scientific. Eventually. We're obviously not quite there yet.

[Anonymous No.6066299]

>>6066288
I don't know where that was claimed, and it wasn't being argued by me at least. But I hope you agree at least that a large amount of the functions and disorders of the human brain have been understood at a completely reductionist level and the progress we have made thus far is amazing.

[Anonymous No.6066304]

>>6066281
Maybe where you live. I don't know. I'm thinking you maybe making simple cognitive errors such as confirmation bias though. Understanding of confirmation bias was, of course, a psychological result.

[Anonymous No.6066302]

>psychology vs neuroscience

I choose philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6066307]

>>6066297
>high quality evidence
comedy gold

[Anonymous No.6066309]

>>6066290
>Also you don't need to understand the entire human brain to understand how certain segments interact with one another and thus how humans behave.
No argument there. Psychology assumes same. My argument was with the extreme "we will understand everything due to understanding individual brain molecules" hyperbole.

>In the first place
Might have been another anon.

[Anonymous No.6066313]

>>6066284
>I did not.
You said neuroscience is just philosophy and metaphysics. Lol you basically did.

>I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.
No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
You're basically a creationist, too stupid to understand that the brain is where human behavior comes from.

>Yes, they are.
No they are not.

>Nope.
Always.

>That's why we need more psychological experiments and tests.
LOL
THAT WON'T DO ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX MECHANICS OF HOW THOSE THINGS WORK
What more can psychology do in this situation?

>Does quantum physics work on the basis of biology?
This argument is retarded.
Neuroscience had massive explanatory power explaining why and how humans behave(psychology). Quantum physics does not explain anything in biology.

>I never said this.
Essentially yes, you fucking did.

Do you think instincts affect human behavior or not?

>Unfortunately a lot of neuroscientists mix up their research with metaphysics.
You keep saying that if it's true.
We wouldn't of had massive advances in psychiatry and curing neurological disorders if not for brain science.
Psychology has brought nothing but statist bureaucracy.

Enjoy your pop-psychology bullshit, I'll stick with my biology and mathematics.

>Yes, it is. Please learn to read.
Read it again.

[Anonymous No.6066314]

>>6066304
My thinking? Go ahead and show me any reasonable scientific publications in a psychology journal.

>Understanding of confirmation bias was, of course, a psychological result.
Psychfags have nothing to do with a result of probability theory and classical logic.

[Anonymous No.6066319]

>>6066299
Depends how reductionist. I dispute "completely" as that implies the molecular level you yourself disavow. Science is hierarchical because with too much reductionism complexity becomes a problem, too little and crudeness is the problem. The reason the brain is hard is because of the vertical interplay between levels of reduction is large compared to most other systems.

[Anonymous No.6066322]

>>6066307
>denial

[Anonymous No.6066321]

>>6066309
>"we will understand everything due to understanding individual brain molecules"
I never said that at all moron. Where human behavior comes from is the neural networks(you know, THOUGHT PATTERNS, INSTINCTS)

Only a retard could think that this is worthless and studying behavior alone could tell us anything worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.6066326]

>>6066322
Not him but no, lel

CBT is bullshit, is this really the garbage psychologists pander, as if all brains are the same.

Depression can be cured by inducing neurogenesis, this has been shown in many studies. Anti-depressants are garbage as well.

[Anonymous No.6066327]

>>6066319
>the brain is complex, therefore we can't and have not understood any complicated and emergent processes completely
Your ignorance is showing.

[Anonymous No.6066328]

>>6066313
>You said neuroscience is just philosophy and metaphysics. Lol you basically did.
It is. Did you never read a neuroscience journal?

>No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.

>You're basically a creationist, too stupid to understand that the brain is where human behavior comes from.
That doesn't mean we have to describe all human behaviour in terms of biochemistry.

>No they are not.
Yes, they are.

>Always.
Nope.

>THAT WON'T DO ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX MECHANICS OF HOW THOSE THINGS WORK
>What more can psychology do in this situation?
Psychology can come up with an explanatory model, expressed in the form of testable hypotheses.

>This argument is retarded.
Why? Because you can't argue against it? Your feelings are irrelevant to this discussion.

>Essentially yes, you fucking did.
No, I did not.

>Do you think instincts affect human behavior or not?
They do.

>You keep saying that if it's true.
Because it is.

>Psychology has brought nothing but statist bureaucracy.
Science is just statist bureaucracy? Cool story.

>Enjoy your pop-psychology bullshit, I'll stick with my biology and mathematics.
You do not know anything about either field.

>Read it again.
I don't need to read things twice. Unlike you I am not reading impaired.

[Anonymous No.6066334]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy

Lol so much for psychology being a hard science.

These people are embarrassing.

We're like evolutionists trying to explain to creationists that things are far more complex than they think.

[Anonymous No.6066338]

>>6066327
Your stawmanning is showing.

[Anonymous No.6066343]

>>6066314
>Psychfags have nothing to do with a result of probability theory and classical logic.
Except studying it and naming it

[Anonymous No.6066344]

>>6066338
>at least that a large amount of the functions and disorders of the human brain have been understood at a completely reductionist level
>I dispute "completely" as that implies the molecular level
Right back at you.

[Anonymous No.6066346]

The amount of strawmanning in this thread is over the roof.

Sage for science.

[Anonymous No.6066351]

>>6066314
Cognitive biases are a well known area of psychology you faggot.

[Anonymous No.6066354]

>>6066343
>>6066351
>math = psychology
lol nope

[Anonymous No.6066357]

>>6066344
what else can "completely reductionist" mean? If it is less than molecular it isn't a complete reduction?

Please clarify what you meant by "completely reductionist" ?

[Anonymous No.6066359]

>>6066354
>implying you know any math

[Anonymous No.6066362]

>>6066328
>Did you never read a neuroscience journal?
Have you?
You see, you're not actually giving an argument here.

>I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.
No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.

>That doesn't mean we have to describe all human behaviour in terms of biochemistry.
Never said that either but if you're going to attempt to truly understand human behavior you're going to have to understand the source of human behavior, the brain.

>Psychology can come up with an explanatory model,
But it's based off fucking educated guesses based on little evidence, neuroscience actually fucking shows you what's going on and can point you in the right direction.

>Because you can't argue against it?
I JUST DID.
Respond to what I said or shut your face.
I'll post it again.
Neuroscience had massive explanatory power explaining why and how humans behave(psychology). Quantum physics does not explain anything in biology.

>They do.
There goes your psychology then.

>Science is just statist bureaucracy? Cool story.
No, psychology has just brought statist bureaucracy and nothing good for mankind.

Also, faggot.
Respond to what I said or shut your face.
I'll post it again.
We wouldn't of had massive advances in psychiatry and curing neurological disorders if not for brain science.

Your field is worthless and provides nothing yet mine has helped countless lives.

>ALZHEIMER'S? SCHIZOPHRENIA?
>WHAT'S THAT?

[Anonymous No.6066366]

>>6066354
1/10

[Anonymous No.6066372]

>>6066354
>math = cognitive bias
your ignorance is showing

[Anonymous No.6066377]

>>6066362
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.6066383]

>>6066362
>Have you?
Yes, I have.

>You see, you're not actually giving an argument here.
I did.

>No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.

>Never said that either
You did.

>But it's based off fucking educated guesses based on little evidence,
The theories are based on a lot of empiricla evidence.

>I JUST DID.
An appeal to emotion is not an argument.

>There goes your psychology then.
non sequitur

>No, psychology has just brought statist bureaucracy and nothing good for mankind.
The purpose of science is not to bring "good for mankind". The purpose of science is to make and explain observations.

>Your field is worthless and provides nothing yet mine has helped countless lives.
Metaphysical talk about consciousness, qualia and free, accompanied by colorful brain pictures does not help anyone.

>ALZHEIMER'S? SCHIZOPHRENIA?
>WHAT'S THAT?
Use google. I won't give you lectures on high school biology.

[Anonymous No.6066387]

>>6065826
>lolbertardian

Psych is bullshit for the most part, but still

[Anonymous No.6066397]

>>6066357
I meant exactly that. There are many diseases and functions of the brain which are completely understood. From the behavior to the neural activity to the signaling pathways in the individual neuron to the electromagnetics of the interacting proteins and enzymes. You then proceeded to "disagree" with me.

[Anonymous No.6066407]

>>6066377
>tl;dr
Translation: I couldn't argue against your facts and arguments so I'm going to ctrl-w like a bitch

>>6066383
>I did.
"It is." Is not a valid argument.

>I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.
No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.

Go to this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Scroll to the bottom.
Social science. :^)

>The theories are based on a lot of empiricla evidence.
Empirical is worthless if the data is fucking irrelevant.

>An appeal to emotion is not an argument.
Respond to what I said or shut your face.
I'll post it again.
Neuroscience had massive explanatory power explaining why and how humans behave(psychology). Quantum physics does not explain anything in biology.

>The purpose of science is not to bring "good for mankind".
I never said it was. I was simply saying that psychology has no benefit for mankind, this was unrelated to the other discussion.

>Metaphysical talk about consciousness, qualia and free, accompanied by colorful brain pictures does not help anyone.
Uh, yes, but this thing called neuroscience does.

We wouldn't of had massive advances in psychiatry and curing neurological disorders if not for neuroscience.

Your field is worthless while mine has cured countless lives. Sorry if these facts make your ass bleed you angsty kid.

You're in a corner here.

>>6066387
>not understanding the free market is an extension of evolution and the only real way to improve living standards for all

[Anonymous No.6066415]

>>6066383
>IT'S TOO HARD FOR ME SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT'S COLORFUL BRAIN PICTURES
>MY SOCIAL SCIENCE DEGREE IS VALID PLEASE BELIEVE ME, PLEASE CREATE JOBS FOR ME

Lol you couldn't project harder, this is pretty funny.

[Anonymous No.6066419]

>>6066397
>You then proceeded to "disagree" with me.
Social scientists like him have such a small brain with little grey matter.

Usually very bad genes or some sort of brain damage.

[Anonymous No.6066422]

>>6066397
so you are claiming we have completely understood the brain through molecular level models?

[Anonymous No.6066423]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw

This should set the record

[Anonymous No.6066427]

>>6066419
i'm a mathematician, samefag

[Anonymous No.6066428]

>>6066407
>"It is." Is not a valid argument.
Factual observations are valid arguments.

>No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.

>Empirical is worthless
Did you just deny the scientific method?

>if the data is fucking irrelevant.
The data is highly relevant.

>I never said it was. I was simply saying that psychology has no benefit for mankind, this was unrelated to the other discussion.
So you made a statement unrelated to science? You only expressed your irrelevant opinon? Science doesn't care about your opinion. Perhaps you should start a blog.

>Uh, yes, but this thing called neuroscience does.
I just explained why it doesn't.

>Your field is worthless while mine has cured countless lives.
Metaphysical talk about consciousness, qualia and free will, accompanied by colorful brain pictures does not help anyone.

[Anonymous No.6066429]

>>6066422
That wasn't implied. Neuroscience wouldn't exist. It would be called neurohistory. What I claimed is a lot of phenomena are understood and there is no need to resort to pseudoscience guesswork as an explanation.

[Anonymous No.6066433]

>>6066415
So you think you're a deep thinker for talking about consciousness, qualia and free will? Any kid can do that. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.6066434]

This website lists new scientific advances almost daily and is widely read.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/

I see very very little about psychology there, and when it is there is has neuroscience backing it up.

Psychology is mostly bullshit and the psych major ITT is projecting hard.

[Anonymous No.6066435]

>>6066407
>not understanding the free market is an extension of evolution and the only real way to improve living standards for all

The free market couldn't cater for the greatest breakthroughs in physics and maths. Einstein was working as a clerk when he coined general relativity; NASA wouldn't exist if it were for your free market, and we'd be living in caves. Free market relies on monetary profit; that corrodes everything

[Anonymous No.6066437]

>>6066429
*completely understood

[Anonymous No.6066440]

>>6066427
What you meant to say is "I am an undergrad who took calculus"

[Anonymous No.6066442]

>>6066427
Why are you discussing things you're completely unqualified to discuss? Are you that much of a pseudo-intellectual?

[Anonymous No.6066443]

>>6066435
>mfw conservatives get told

[Anonymous No.6066446]

>>6066423
/thread

[Anonymous No.6066450]

>>6066423
>>6066446
>m-m-m-muh Feynman!!!!!!
>everything he says is right!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.6066452]

>>6066429
>That wasn't implied.
Then why say it? Or if it wasn't you, why butt in when I am arguing with another anon who did claim it?

[Anonymous No.6066454]

>>6066450
>implying it isn't

Begone social scientist

[Anonymous No.6066457]

>>6066452
Where do you think I said it?

[Anonymous No.6066458]

>>6066440
I am a PhD first year, my work is broadly on manifolds over finite fields.

[Anonymous No.6066462]

>>6066442
My discussion in this thread has been on complexity theory. And disputing that cognitive bias was some branch of maths.

[Anonymous No.6066466]

>>6066428
>Factual observations are valid arguments.
I agree, then why did you post "It is."?

>I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.
No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.

Go to this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Scroll to the bottom.
Social science. :^)

>Did you just deny the scientific method?
No, did you not read the rest of my sentence?

>The data is highly relevant.
It's not if we don't know WHY we are getting this data.

Respond to what I said or shut your face.
I'll post it again.
Neuroscience had massive explanatory power explaining why and how humans behave(psychology). Quantum physics does not explain anything in biology.

>So you made a statement unrelated to science?
It is related to science. Just not to what we were talking about.

>Science doesn't care about your opinion.
Are you a robot or just stupid. We were having a side argument about the value of our fields to society.

>Metaphysical talk about consciousness, qualia and free will,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So you're just going to ignore everything I said about curing neurological diseases?

Lol why do you keep posting if you don't have a refutation and just shitpost constantly?

>>6066435
>Einstein was working as a clerk when he coined general relativity
No shit, he did it by himself.
So did tesla.

>NASA wouldn't exist if it were for your free market
Fucking good, many private space companies would exist and companies like planetary resources would already be mining resources.

> Free market relies on monetary profit; that corrodes everything
Profit is the best way to find out what your fellow man values best.

[Anonymous No.6066467]

>>6066458
>manifolds over finite fields.

How do you construct those?

[Anonymous No.6066468]

>>6066462
>And disputing that cognitive bias was some branch of maths.
It is though. What you call a "cognitive bias" depends on your underlying definitions and logic.

[Anonymous No.6066469]

>>6066457
I have no idea if you did. I said you or some other anon.

[Anonymous No.6066471]

>>6066450
Psychologist faggot, why are you still here?

Seriously, you couldn't respond to our arguments and are now repeating yourself and shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6066475]

>>6066443
>>mfw conservatives get told
>mfw leftists post the dumbest strawman arguments regurgitated over and over

[Anonymous No.6066476]

>>6066467
In my case, with De Rham cohomologies. Do you maths?

[Anonymous No.6066478]

>>6066466
>I agree, then why did you post "It is."?
Are you seriously asking why I posted a fact?

>No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.

>No, did you not read the rest of my sentence?
You denied the scientific method.

>It's not if we don't know WHY we are getting this data.
That's why we need psychology to come up with an explanatory theory.

>It is related to science. Just not to what we were talking about.
Your uneducated opinion is not related to science. Get a blog.

>Are you a robot or just stupid.
All humans are robots. Biological robots. Or do you deny evolution?

>We were having a side argument about the value of our fields to society.
"Value to society" is a bogus concept and a strawman only used by religitards.

>Lol why do you keep posting if you don't have a refutation and just shitpost constantly?
Nice projection.

[Anonymous No.6066480]

>+ 313 posts and 20 image replies omitted.

[Anonymous No.6066483]

>>6066476
I know what a deRham cohomology is. What do you do with it to construct manifolds over finite fields?

[Anonymous No.6066486]

>>6066478
>>I agree, then why did you post "It is."?
>Are you seriously asking why I posted a fact?

>lose the debate hard
>decide to troll instead

Pathetic, I hope you feel bad for yourself.

[Anonymous No.6066487]

>>6066466
>Fucking good, many private space companies would exist and companies like planetary resources would already be mining resources.

Has it occurred to you that many scientific experiments are unprofitable? Recall how hard it was to fund the Higgs boson, even with organised government. In the end, purely theoretical physics and maths couldn't exist without government support (I'm not talking about mining). Without those things, we would still be living in caves whining about muh freedumbz

[Anonymous No.6066492]

>>6066486
At no point was I trolling. It isn't my fault that you cannot argue against simple facts. If you want to troll, choose a more gullible board, e.g. /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6066496]

>>6066487
>Has it occurred to you that many scientific experiments are unprofitable?
With a deflationary currency and everyone having an abundance of savings we would be able to donate to basic research, it would be voluntary and the pool of resources would be huge because everyone would have so much leftover income to do this.

Also you don't think condos on mars and the moon aren't profitable?

>Recall how hard it was to fund the Higgs boson
Yeah and that was sooooo necessary wasn't it.

>Without those things, we would still be living in caves whining about muh freedumbz
Without capitalism and thus the industrial revolution we would still be toiling away on farms and dying at age 30.

What we need is MASS PRODUCTION.

[Anonymous No.6066500]

>>6066475
>muh liberdiez

Admit it; organisation is crucial for scientific development and application. Government needs to fund scientific advancement in physics, for the simple reason that it isn't profitable. It doesn't even need to extend to theoretical physics, look at the conservatives currently in Australia who would gladly cut the carbon tax

[Anonymous No.6066507]

>>6066483
>ok i'll play
we take a scheme over a finite field and look at special cases where the hodge spectral sequence does degenerate (in general it doesn't on finite fields), then use the filter given by a spectral sequence of the hypercohomology to draw analogues with the case where the field is C.

that is my profound hope anyway, else I'm wasting three plus years.

>what is good faith
faggot

[Anonymous No.6066510]

>>6066492
>At no point was I trolling.

Lets see:
>Are you seriously asking why I posted a fact?

Saying the "fact" is that you "did" without providing any evidence and yet continuing to say it's a fact

>>No, what you described is what social scientists like yourself do.
>>I am no social scientist and what I described was neuroscience.

Repeating this over and over.

>You denied the scientific method.
I said "Empirical is worthless if the data is fucking irrelevant."
Not empirical is worthless period. You clearly read my entire sentence.

More pathetic trolling.

>That's why we need psychology to come up with an explanatory theory.
You continues to deny the fact I keep saying psychology isn't a sufficient tool and neuroscience is needed, you don't refute this.

>Your uneducated opinion is not related to science.
YET YOU FUCKING RESPONDED TO IT ANY WAY IN THE OTHER POST WHERE YOU SAID:

>>Your field is worthless while mine has cured countless lives.
>Metaphysical talk about consciousness, qualia and free will, accompanied by colorful brain pictures does not help anyone.

>All humans are robots. Biological robots. Or do you deny evolution?
Pretending you didn't understand I was insulting you and not literal.

>"Value to society" is a bogus concept and a strawman only used by religitards.
Clearly more trolling as you actually responded to this and knew it was unrelated to our other debate.
Cool ebic trelling brah. It won't change the fact you lost.

[Anonymous No.6066512]

>>6066496
So basically, fuck anything that isn't directly profitable. Doesn't matter if we simulated a mini Big Bang, I want muh freedumbz and low taxes. Besides, the industrial revolution would be impossible without newtons work; Newton was never a rich man. Profit motive sure didn't drive him. Your thoughts on economics are wrong; deflationary currency doesn't necessarily equal more wealth. All this is assuming people would actually donate, and their donations could sustain large scale projects that aren't necessarily going to be profitable. I repeat, if we all worked for profit, we'd be living in caves. Capitalism can fund profit motived innovation, not theoretical physics and maths, ie what really matters

[Anonymous No.6066513]

>>6066500
>Admit it; organisation is crucial for scientific development and application.

I agree, which is why I'm a libertarian, I want mass fucking production and not fighting over scraps the welfare state and corporations give us.

>Government needs to fund scientific advancement in physics, for the simple reason that it isn't profitable.
It can be funded voluntarily, see:
>>6066496


>look at the conservatives currently in Australia who would gladly cut the carbon tax
Only Ausfailla would actually implement a carbon tax. Enjoy your lack of economic production and poverty.

[Anonymous No.6066518]

>>6066513
>Only Ausfailla would actually implement a carbon tax. Enjoy your lack of economic production and poverty.

Hurr global warming is le communism

[Anonymous No.6066522]

>>6066513
>It can be funded voluntarily

Historically, this hasn't been the case. Government force is necessary for this sort of thing

[Anonymous No.6066523]

>>6066510
Ah, you're back for more humiliation!

>Saying the "fact" is that you "did" without providing any evidence and yet continuing to say it's a fact
I posted my fact once. There is no need to repeat myself unnecessarily. You can deny facts as long as you want, it only makes you look stupid.

>Repeating this over and over.
Is babby getting tired of his own game?

>I said "Empirical is worthless if the data is fucking irrelevant."
No data is irrelevant. Every observation requires scientific explanation. Rejecting or denying observational data is the religious method, not the scientific method.

>YET YOU FUCKING RESPONDED TO IT ANY WAY IN THE OTHER POST WHERE YOU SAID:
As long as you post fallacies, I will point out why they are wrong. Don't like it? Then don't post fallacies. How about posting arguments instead? Oh wait, you're lacking the education to post an argument.

>Pretending you didn't understand I was insulting you and not literal.
So you admit posting only insults and no arguments? Cool story, kid. /sci/ is not your school's playground, /sci/ is a science and math forum.

>Clearly more trolling as you actually responded to this and knew it was unrelated to our other debate.
How am I "trolling", when it's YOU who posts off-topic remarks and openly admits doing so? And then you get butthurt when I reply? I think you trolled nobody but yourself.

[Anonymous No.6066525]

>>6066512
>So basically, fuck anything that isn't directly profitable.
No, those things would be funded by voluntary basic research which would be loaded with funding as I said.

Also companies would do basic research as they always have done. There would just be more of it.

>Doesn't matter if we simulated a mini Big Bang
Clearly that is a bigger priority than ending hunger and curing biological aging..hhurrrrr..

>Besides, the industrial revolution would be impossible without newtons work; Newton was never a rich man.
THAT'S MY POINT, IDEAS CAN COME FROM ANYWHERE, WHY WOULD YOU FUCKING SILENCE THEM

A free market doesn't even have to be about profit. Linux was created essentially in the free market(voluntarily) with no state interference.

>deflationary currency doesn't necessarily equal more wealth
Yes it does, the gilded age had the largest levels of economic growth and raised living standards and it was deflationary.

>and their donations could sustain large scale projects that aren't necessarily going to be profitable.
Uh, yeah, people already donate a LOT of fucking money into shit that isn't generating a profit at all.

>if we all worked for profit, we'd be living in caves.
Yet we had the fucking industrial revolution thanks to it.

Fuck you're a moron.

>Capitalism can fund profit motived innovation, not theoretical physics and maths, ie what really matters
Those things are impossible without capital goods and MASS PRODUCTION
ABUNDANCE OF RESOURCES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI

[Anonymous No.6066529]

Catholic psychology

factor in influence of angels and demons

and God's grace and the effect on the person

a lot of the popular secular psychology is twisted

psychology is physical (chemicals), mental/emotional (thinking good thoughts and being a flourishing individual and experiencing and dealing with all emotions and expressing them), and of the soul.

Think about how that is related. Guilt from sinning or doing something evil, creates negative thoughts and then a form of self-punishment on the body.

Therefore there is a Catholic psychology

[Anonymous No.6066531]

>>6066522
Really retard?
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

>>6066518
Never said that, enjoy your poverty though because you're too dogmatic to understand basic economics.

[Anonymous No.6066541]

>>6066531
>listening to an "economists" views on global warming, instead of experts in the field
>freenation.org
>not growing out of libertarianism and le economics at age 9

Profit motives can fund the application of science, but not true innovation. String theory, for example isn't particularly profitable.
>inb4 it isn't useful
Never go full redneck

[Anonymous No.6066557]

>>6066523
>Ah, you're back for more humiliation!
I never left and everyone in this thread is making fun of your retarded beliefs.

>I posted my fact once. There is no need to repeat myself unnecessarily.
Lol you said you argument is fact, without explaining why. An explanation is required. Watch as you say you already explained it or whatever.

>Is babby getting tired of his own game?
You're not responding to the fact even wikipedia calls you a social science, deal with it troll.

>No data is irrelevant.
YES DATA can be irrelevant you retarded troll.
What would the price of apples in china be relevant to astronomy?

>Rejecting or denying observational data is the religious method, not the scientific method.
Which is exactly what you are doing. Enjoy denying the massive advances and explanatory power of neuroscience because of your religion.
Do you have brain damage? Oh wait you don't even believe in that.

>As long as you post fallacies, I will point out why they are wrong. Don't like it?
Ahh you child, you contradict yourself again.
First you said
>So you made a statement unrelated to science? You only expressed your irrelevant opinon? Science doesn't care about your opinion. Perhaps you should start a blog.
now you say you're only responding to fallacies.
Which one is it?
You can't have it both ways, unless you're a troll.

[Anonymous No.6066559]

>>6066523

>So you admit posting only insults and no arguments?
Nope, in that one sentence I was posting half and insult and half an argument, the rest were arguments, sorry you cannot read.

>/sci/ is a science and math forum.
Which means poor psychologists aren't allowed here.

>when it's YOU who posts off-topic remarks
It's not TOTALLY off topic. We're having an open discussion about many things here. I made a statement about the practical value of our fields. You're going to crazy lengths to avoid responding to the fact you're wrong about this.

>And then you get butthurt when I reply?
HAHA OH WOW
DAT PROJECTION

You also continue to deny the fact I keep saying psychology isn't a sufficient tool and neuroscience is needed, you don't refute this.

PEOPLE.

THIS IS THE MIND OF YOUR TYPICAL PSYCHOLOGIST

THEY'RE ACTUALLY THIS BRAINDEAD RETARDED

[Anonymous No.6066564]

>>6066525
>THAT'S MY POINT, IDEAS CAN COME FROM ANYWHERE, WHY WOULD YOU FUCKING SILENCE THEM

Strawman. Why do you conservatives assume that anyone who sees more than monetary value in human accomplishment is a far left Fascist?
New ideas are going to stop "coming from anywhere " if there isn't funding. The industrial revolution was spawned by newtons work; no one thought that would be profitable at the time. In the same way, researching particle physics may not seem profitable to backwards medieval retards, but its going to spawn tomorrows economic growth. And when the next big economic boom arrives thanks to this, you're still going to praise muh free markets because look how many jobs it creates!!!111

Oh, and how exactly do you propose the Internet could sustain itself without governmental management? You don't actually think its a model of free market anarchy, do you?

[Anonymous No.6066567]

>>6066557

>YES DATA can be irrelevant you retarded troll.
What would the price of apples in china be relevant to astronomy

B-but muh correlation MUST equal muh causation111111111111111

Thanks for silencing that retard

[Anonymous No.6066575]

>>6066541

Stop arguing with him, it's pointless.
He just openly said the Higgs boson was useless

[Anonymous No.6066588]

>>6066557
>everyone in this thread is making fun of your retarded beliefs.
Keep telling that to yourself. You're laughing stock of this thread.

>Lol you said you argument is fact, without explaining why. An explanation is required. Watch as you say you already explained it or whatever.
An explanation is not required for well-known facts. On a science and math board we can expect you to have at least high school education.

>You're not responding to the fact even wikipedia calls you a social science
There is no wikipedia article about my person and I am certainly not a social science. I am a human.

>What would the price of apples in china be relevant to astronomy?
This is a straw man.

>Which is exactly what you are doing. Enjoy denying the massive advances and explanatory power of neuroscience because of your religion.
I never did such a thing.

>Do you have brain damage? Oh wait you don't even believe in that.
I do not have brain damage.

>now you say you're only responding to fallacies
Red herring is a fallacy. If you post off-topic remarks, that's a red herring. You want to distract from the original topic of discussion because you feel uncomfortable for you're losing the debate.

[Anonymous No.6066598]

>>6066588
>This is a straw man

Not that guy, but it isn't a straw an. Earlier on you said there is NO irrelevant data. Clearly there is.

[Anonymous No.6066600]

>>6066564
>Why do you conservatives
Nobody is a conservative here. I'm a libertarian.

>that anyone who sees more than monetary value in human accomplishment is a far left Fascist?
We don't assume that at all.

Money is only temporary until we reach a point of virtual post scarcity

>if there isn't funding.
and I already told you where the funding will come from, are you ready to argue economics now?

>The industrial revolution was spawned by newtons work;
Yeah, not really, that was a part of it sure, but it happened because we freed our markets and allowed economic production to occur. Those factories wouldn't have existed at all without it.

>no one thought that would be profitable at the time.
What? lol Doing a bunch of very small scale experiments and writing shit down? That could have been done by anyone at the time.

and I already debunked your "YOU ONLY THINK PROFIT IS GOOD HUUUURRR" BS

>but its going to spawn tomorrows economic growth. And when the next big economic boom arrives thanks to this
It's hilarious you think the entire IR was the result of some

Protip: There would be countless newtons doing experiments in a free market, see linux.

>Oh, and how exactly do you propose the Internet could sustain itself without governmental management? You don't actually think its a model of free market anarchy, do you?
*sigh*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbR4cjA-Few

>>6066575
No I said people have priorities and there are projects more vital to our lives than a science experiment that doesn't increase living standards at all.

Statists like yourself are pretty bad at reading comprehension. All those public schools, wow.

[Anonymous No.6066604]

>>6066559
>Nope, in that one sentence I was posting half and insult and half an argument
Infantile insults are not even half arguments.

>Which means poor psychologists aren't allowed here.
What about rich psychologists?

>It's not TOTALLY off topic.
Unscientific opinions are off-topic.

>We're having an open discussion about many things here.
The discussion has a clearly defined topic. I'm sorry to hear that your underdeveloped intellect is not capable of holding a coherent conversation.

>I made a statement about the practical value of our fields.
It is not my field and your personal value judgements belong on your blog or your facebook wall.

>You're going to crazy lengths to avoid responding to the fact you're wrong about this.
Wrong about what?

>HAHA OH WOW
>DAT PROJECTION
>THIS IS THE MIND OF YOUR TYPICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
>THEY'RE ACTUALLY THIS BRAINDEAD RETARDED
You must be in tears. Don't cut yourself, kid.

[Anonymous No.6066606]

>>6066588
>You're laughing stock of this thread.

Never in my life have I seen a man project this hard.

[Anonymous No.6066611]

>>6066598
Please show me one piece of irrelevant data. That's right, you can't.

[Anonymous No.6066613]

>>6066541
>>listening to an "economists" views on global warming, instead of experts in the field
>listening to climatologist "experts" funded by the scam organization "United Nations" opinions on the economic impact of carbon taxes instead of actual economists

>>freenation.org
Don't kill the messenger.

>>not growing out of libertarianism and le economics at age 9
You're thinking of socialism,

Don't worry, you'll grow out of it soon enough.

>but not true innovation.
Yes because only you know what "true" innovation is.

>String theory, for example isn't particularly profitable.
Does researching it benefit society? No

Then fuck off and eat shit you fucking pay for it faggot.

Anti-aging technology, automated vertical farming, fusion, thorium is much more valuable to people and would be the first shit to get funded in a free market.

You're a sadistic fuck.

>Never go full redneck
I'm not the dogmatist here.

[Anonymous No.6066614]

>>6066606
Awww, do you need reaction images to cover up the fact that you are crying? That's cute.

[Anonymous No.6066619]

>>6066588
Alright.

You got me.

I have been out-trolled.

Your pretty good actually.

[Anonymous No.6066620]

>>6066611
Causation=/ correlation

Of course there's going to be irrelevant data.
The price of apples, for example

>inb4 strawman

[Anonymous No.6066625]

>>6066614
>he's still posting

[Anonymous No.6066630]

>>6066604
>It is not my field and your personal value judgements belong on your blog or your facebook wall.

YET YOU FUCKING RESPONDED TO IT ANYWAY

I'm lolling so hard, man you're a 10/10 troll and everyone can see it. God damn

[Anonymous No.6066632]

>>6066620
>Causation=/ correlation
They are the same thing. Do you even AGW?

>The price of apples, for example
The price of apples is of importance for everyone who wants to buy or sell apples. It follows the laws of supply and demand, is thus scientifically explained by economics. At the stock market you could even bet against a falling price of apples. Tell me again how you think the price of apples is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6066641]

>>6066625
>he's still crying
Where's your mommy, little boy?

>>6066630
You have a very infantile sense of humor. What happened in your childhood that made your brain development stop at around the age of 4?

[Anonymous No.6066642]

>>6066613
>being a conspiracy theorist


Besides, no one thought general relativity or newtons work would "benefit society" at the time.
The examples of science you listed are applied science. Without the pure theory, ie shit that no one wants to pay for because it doesn't benefit muh society directly, none of those would exist

>considering economics an actual profession
>listening to an economists ideology-fuelled ranting on scientific issues while dismissing the actual scientists
>being a teabagger

ISHyGgDT

[Anonymous No.6066644]

Welp, If we learned anything from this thread it's that psychologists are amazing trolls. Does their butthurt over having a worthless degree drive them to excel at trolling we will never know.

[Anonymous No.6066648]

>>6066632
>They are the same thing

Do you then accept that the price of apples in china is relevant to your research, if you happen to find a correlation?
No, not a strawman; you brought this upon yourself

[Anonymous No.6066649]

>>6066641
>reddit's still posting

[Anonymous No.6066654]

>>6066644
The fact that you have to resort to yelling "troll" after being utterly humiliated in a debate you lost is a phenomenon that requires PSYCHOLOGICAL explanation.

[Anonymous No.6066659]

>>6066649
Now you resort to calling "reddit"? It's getting better and better. Your mental age just dropped from 4 to 3. What's next? Are you gonna poop your pants?

[Anonymous No.6066662]

>>6066654
>utterly humiliated
It keeps happening.

[Anonymous No.6066665]

>>6066662
Does it surprise you? I mean you're actively asking for humiliation. Is this some weird fetish of yours?

[Anonymous No.6066667]

>>6066659
>>6066665
EBIC SIMBLY EBIC

:^)

[Anonymous No.6066674]

>>6066654
>>6066659
>>6066665
>humiliation

Yeah you really got me bro, so "humiliated", by EVERYONE HERE even.

[Anonymous No.6066680]

>>6066667
>>6066674
It fills me with satisfaction to see how your little "clever" trolling attempt backfired and ended up with you seriously rectally injured. Come on, loser boy. Drop your whole folder of reaction images.

[Anonymous No.6066686]

>>6066642
>Besides, no one thought general relativity or newtons work would "benefit society" at the time.
What a great argument, we should only fund things we know are NOT going to benefit society

>The examples of science you listed are applied science.
All of the massive innovations during that time are just "applied" and irrelevant?

Also you really think that people didn't do a load of basic research during those years?
What about tesla. Oh wait you hate him because he wasn't funded by the government.

>Without the pure theory, ie shit that no one wants to pay for because it doesn't benefit muh society directly, none of those would exist
WHAT?
If something benefits us, people will fucking fund it, a lot of things are funded voluntarily, like SCIENCE.
Debate the actual economics of the matter or fuck off.

>>listening to an economists ideology-fuelled ranting on scientific issues while dismissing the actual scientists
I do, I just realize it's clearly not as big of a deal as you cultists claim.
Economics has no ideology it's basic logic and science.
You really think taxing production will have no affect at all on economic output and thus living standards.
Enjoy putting carbon taxes on africa so they will never develop, you sociopath.
>>being a teabagger
>believing everything you hear on mainstream media
You watch msnbc don't you?
Welp, enjoy your corporate wars, police state and NSA you petrodollar supporting piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.6066691]

>>6066680
>Come on, loser boy.
>loser boy

IT KEEPS HAPPENING

[Anonymous No.6066698]

>>6066680
>loser boy

What are you 50 years old?

[Anonymous No.6066710]

>>6066691
I see you followed my command. Good boy. Your next task is to post a picture of yourself. Naked. And please write "virgin" on your chest, in capital letters.

[Anonymous No.6066715]

>>6066710
>*tips fedora*
Can you just go back to reddit now, the way you talk sounds like you're clearly from there.

[Anonymous No.6066718]

>>6066698
Nah, I just enjoy bullying omegas. And guess what. 4chan is the best place to find loses with low self-esteem who are easily brought to tears. The usual signs of emotional distress are overuse of reaction images, CAPSLOCK and accusations of "trolling".

[Anonymous No.6066723]

>>6066715
>muh secret virgin club
>no evil womynz allowed

Too bad, nerd. I've never been to reddit and I'm gonna stay here. Does it hurt your feelings? Why don't you beg me a little more to leave? Tell me how uncomfortable you're feeling right now. Maybe we can psychoanalyze your trauma.

[Anonymous No.6066726]

>>6066718
Yes because saying "loser boy" is clearly something the hip cool kids today say.

Everyone knows what happened in this thread, you lost and started shitposting.

Desperately trying to get people to think differently is not going to work.

[Anonymous No.6066733]

>>6066726
I lost the debate? Nice denial. I posted facts and logical arguments and in response you got overemotional. You lost your already very poor verbal communication, started flailing your arms and throwing a repetitive tantrum mix of "ur stupid" and "ur troll". If you ever wondered why you're socially isolated, that's the reason. It is because your mental maturity is stuck in kindergarten.

[Anonymous No.6066735]

>>6066686
>economics
>police state

You just don't get it, do you?
The point is, people are ready to dismiss more abstract areas of physics, that will prove beneficial tomorrow. Despite what your economists tell you, particle physics will broaden our understanding of physics as a whole, and will thus benefit society when applied to technology. Noones ready to spend billions on "just another goddamned subatomic particle" for the simple fact that they are ignorant of its significance. Most physics research today is limited by cost; Nobody's gonna pay for quantum mechanics out of their own pocket. It requires collective effort, sometimes forced. For example, restrictions on trade need to be applied to deal with climate change (yes it's an observable scientific phenomenon retard). Do you honestly think economics isn't motivated by ideology? Is muh freeeeeeeee market not a religion for your kind? It's gotten to the point where you dismiss empirical data because muh global warming is communismz

[Anonymous No.6066747]

If anyone is still watching this thread.

See this post:

>>6066733

and compare it to his earlier posts, and honestly tell me he wasn't trolling:
>>6066478
>>6066588

At least 3 anons called him out on it after he LOST the argument and now he's going U MAD U MAD I WON, IM NOT TROLLING XD

Extremely asspained redditor confirmed.

[Anonymous No.6066751]

>>6066686
Not that guy, but give up. You've lost. G back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.6066765]

>>6066747
>his
lol nope

>At least 3 anons
Yeah, that totally wasn't you samefagging.

Keep it going. Post more reaction images and more reddit accusations. Show all of us what the pinnacle of degeneracy looks like. I've seen real autist and actual mental retards IRL, but I have to say I've never seen something like you. It's amazing how you even manage to type a reply, given the fact that you are mentally a toddler.

Would you mind calling your mom to the computer? I'd like to chat to her about your childhood development and your impairment. It's actually interesting from a scientific pont of view.

[Anonymous No.6066777]

>>6066735
>economics
>police state
Yes you support the police state and petrodollar.

>particle physics will broaden our understanding of physics as a whole, and will thus benefit society when applied to technology.
Okay, where is this massive economic and technological boom? We found the god particle. Where is the boom?

> for the simple fact that they are ignorant of its significance.
Right, funding things that have absolutely nothing to do with what we want will provide a greater affect than directly funding that thing. You're insane.

>Most physics research today is limited by cost;
No fucking shit which is why the costs need to come down massively by increasing capital goods production. I already explained how everyone would have loads of disposable income to donate to this due to a deflationary currency.
Debate economics or gtfo

>Nobody's gonna pay for quantum mechanics out of their own pocket.
Yes they would.
Moot doesn't profit off 4chan and yet it's here for 10 years.

>sometimes forced.
Nah, force is something we use weapons to defend ourselves against, like you, you anti-social fuck.

>For example, restrictions on trade need to be applied to deal with climate change
I've already explained why we DON'T need to do that, REPLY TO ME FAGGOT

> Is muh freeeeeeeee market not a religion for your kind?
Government is the biggest religion on earth, in fact it formed from religion. You people are fucking creationists motivated by state dogma.

>muh global warming is communismz
Nah, it's actually funded by corporations, but you're too much of a tool to understand that.
>>6066751
>you've lost
>after you just debunked what the other guy said
that guy confirmed

[Anonymous No.6066794]

>>6066777
>debate economics

I'm giving up. You're a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.6066815]

>>6066777
>being this naive

[Anonymous No.6066821]

>>6066765
Troll.

[Anonymous No.6066826]

>>6066794
>>6066815
>no argument
>no argument at all

>not checking my trips

[Anonymous No.6066833]

>>6066765
Not that guy but,
you're still fucking here, holy shit.

>It's actually interesting from a scientific pont of view.
Psychologists don't believe in science.

[Anonymous No.6066838]

>>6066765
>Yeah, that totally wasn't you samefagging.
But it wasn't.

People can see right through you.

Go away you 13 year old troll.

[Anonymous No.6066926]

Psychology is outdated and mostly bullshit. It's slowly being replaced by neuroscience.

It developed at a time when people had no idea how the brain worked and simply referred to it as the "mind".

[Anonymous No.6067199]

Aproximately 400 posts of butthurt and retardadation. Best thread ever.

[Anonymous No.6067426]

>>6066006
>relating everything to communism

Spot the American everyone!