Large number of studies in psychology can't be replicated

[Anonymous No.7493642]

>Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

Are there still people who take psychology seriously?

[Anonymous No.7493643]

>social "sciences"

[Anonymous No.7493647]

so, why didn't you get enough pussy recently OP ?

[Anonymous No.7493654]

>>7493642
>Are there still people who take psychology seriously?

Yes, psychology is perfectly valid scientific discipline. The mind is a physical thing and can be investigated empirically. But its a discipline riddled with bad science. There are some excellent scientists working in psych but a lot more terrible ones. The very latest findings are often suspect, but after a couple of years the bad science is pruned away thru the usual actions of the scientific method. Real models that show long term consistency in tests over time can and have been developed by psychologists.

[Anonymous No.7493669]

>>7493654
>but after a couple of years the bad science is pruned away thru the usual actions of the scientific method
Not necessarily. The problem is that the amount of replication studies conducted in psychology is astonishingly low if I happen to recall correctly. There was a study on this which I can't seem to find at the moment.

[Anonymous No.7493673]

>>7493669

Which is why you learn to ignore unreplicated studies in psych. Is it a problem? Absolutely, the whole field is being held back by the poor standard of research. But it doesn't invalidate the whole field, especially when there is so much promising work being one for example with fmri machines.

[Anonymous No.7493685]

>>7493654
>Yes, psychology is perfectly valid scientific discipline

"perfectly valid discipline" sure. Well... kinda.
Sorta.


"scientific"
No

[Anonymous No.7493686]

>>7493673
It invalidates it as a science. In my opinion at least. The lack of successfully replicated experiments goes against everything that science is.

[Anonymous No.7493689]

>>7493686
>The lack of successfully replicated experiments goes against everything that science is.

Nonsense, it just means more basic research is needed. All experiments are unrepeated until someone repeats them, does this invalidate science?

>>7493685

Explain why psychology doesn't qualify as a science.

[Anonymous No.7493708]

>>7493689
>Explain why psychology doesn't qualify as a science.
Explain why you think it does.
You might as well demand I explain why pottery doesn't qualify as a science.

It doesn't use scientific method to test hypotheses through rigorous, reproducible, objective experiments featuring a control group.

Granted, I took high-school psych back in the early 80's, but (at least back then), the major "schools" were all based on made-up nonsense.
Jung, Freud, etc just made up stories the way cave-men explained lightning and thunder.
"collective unconscious"
"all thoughts are sexual"
etc.

[Anonymous No.7493743]

I study psychology mostly because I'm interested in neuropsychology. Basic psych is boring as fuck, it's like studying philosophy

[Anonymous No.7493784]

>>7493708
>It doesn't use scientific method to test hypotheses through rigorous, reproducible, objective experiments featuring a control group.

Yes, it does.

>Jung, Freud,

Psychiatry is not psychology.

[Anonymous No.7493796]

>>7493784
>Psychiatry is not psychology.
True, but they aren't as separate as astronomy and astrology.

[Anonymous No.7493802]

>>7493796

What are you talking about? Psychiatry is a branch of medicine, it ins;t a science. It uses insights from psychology, from chemistry, from religion and philosophy, and uses them to treat illness. It's concern is solely with outcomes, not with models and theories.

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. See how these are not the same thing?

[Anonymous No.7493814]

Psychiatrists can prescribe you meds, that's about it.

[Anonymous No.7493972]

>>7493814
And sometimes very good ones!

[Anonymous No.7494015]

>>7493802
>Psychology is the scientific study of the mind

I wonder what quantum physicists think about that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

[Anonymous No.7494020]

>>7493642
I can't help but think this would be remedied if only the proportion of females comprising the field was reduced.

[Anonymous No.7494039]

>>7494015
>I wonder what quantum physicists think about that

Why would anyone care? Scientists are no better than lay persons outside their own speciality.

[Anonymous No.7494078]

>>7494039
>Scientists are no better than lay persons outside their own speciality.
Actual scientists have general knowledge about science, and that's why you _should_ care what Feynman thinks about witchcraft (err, I mean "social science").

[Anonymous No.7494103]

>>7494020

I can't help but agree.

[Anonymous No.7494110]

>>7494015
>quantum physicists

kek

[Anonymous No.7494157]

>>7493642
Psychology is scienceish at best. It beats the hell out of "it is known", but doesn't have the rigor of actual science.

[Anonymous No.7494409]

"What is your motivation for studying psychology?"

95% of psychiatrists answer the above question incorrectly on purpose.

[Anonymous No.7494431]

>>7493654
This. Psychology is a very good field, the only problem is everyone bases their knowledge on things that "could be" right, even when they are patently shown to be false. I wouldn't call it a science, more like an anti-science in that rather than testing hypotheses to observations, psychologists use their hypotheses as fact.

[Anonymous No.7495019]

Kinda ironic that Psychometrics is probably the most reliable subfield of Psychology despite the fact that it has the worst reputation.

[German Sociologist No.7495308]

>>7495019

People, there is a difference between psychology (which has lots of sub-disciplines: clinical psychology, social psychology, etc.), psychiatry (whichs is more rooted in medicine, but of course also takes from sub-disciplines like clinical psychology) and psychoanalysis (which is based on Freud (Super Ego, Ego, It) and has very little to do with actual modern psychology).

Psychoanalysts sort of founded the field, because they were the first to frame the right questions (about the unconscious), but they got all the answers wrong. This is how we got to modern psychology.

The problem which OP presented above is only partly methodical, the greater problem is the 'economy' of the scientific field. The bias towards positive results in order to get your paper published, get your name cited as often as possible and, thus, receive more internal as well as external funds. Replications are, economically, just not as valuable. For a complete replication you would need to gather all the data again, which is a very tedious process in the social sciences. If you then try to replicate the findings, you might get different results

a.) Everything is exactly the same, study was successfully reproduced. Great job! You selflessly sacrificed your time and effort in the name of proper science. Unfortunately we are not interested in publishing your findings, this new study about the sexual behaviour of siamese twins is more interesting.

b.) Negative or non-significant results. Oh shit, that's tense. If it's an interesting topic, we MIGHT get ourselves a publication. It is a safe bet, however, that some one is going to be pissed about this and might decide not to cite us in the future.


tl;dr:

It's a stupid system which doesn't really reward replications. Which is incredibly toxic for science.

[German Sociologist No.7495310]

>>7495019
>>7495308

Didn't even mean to respond to you.

[Anonymous No.7495313]

>>7493689
>All experiments are unrepeated until someone repeats them, does this invalidate science?

That's not the problem.

The problem is that when we do repeat them, in psychology, they turn out to be bullshit -the vast majority of the time-.

You're making it sound like the problem is a lack of replicated experiments, when that's not the problem.

[Anonymous No.7495322]

>phychologists
>maths

yep that's your problem right there , do you really expect them to understand percentages , plots or even concepts like "statistically significant" ?

i know some students in psychology i can garantee you they can't do that for sure

[Anonymous No.7495360]

>>7493814
That's about all they do too.
>so you're depressed?
>umm yeah the last guy I just met half an hour ago said I was
>Well seeing as I've known you for 8 mins now I can safely prescribe you a chemical that will interfere with one of your nervous systems main function across it's entirety, that being, the reuptake of seretonin.
>b-but will it help me?
>Only if you want it to. And if you keep coming back to talk to that last guy.
>thx i guess...
>By the way a new law was passed and I have to tell you that the drug you are about to take has extreme consequences if you cease it cold turkey. Good day.

Science at it's finest application. I probably shouldn't have added the Psych mentioning it's withdrawal consequences as they rarily do this and there is no law saying they must.

[Anonymous No.7495379]

>>7495313
>when we do repeat them, in psychology
Name one other field that has attempted to chart its reproducibility.

People here criticize psychology for a low replication rate, yet it's the only field that has actually tried to quantify and assess the quality of its own work. People simply assume that high impact papers in other fields are reproducible, but there is no basis for that assumption whatsoever. The fact that psychologists seem to actually care enough to undertake and publish replication studies speaks to their integrity.

[Anonymous No.7495388]

Psychology suffers from very limited test populations, poor controls (relying heavily on self-reporting surveys with strong population biases), and not giving a fuck about proper statistical analysis. Of course they are going to have problems with repeatability.

[Anonymous No.7495395]

>>7495379
>their integrity
whose integrity ? Certainly not that of the tons of people who publish paper that have no statistical significance. It proves the integrity of the people who produced this data.

[Anonymous No.7495403]

>>7495379
Name one other field that has this much of a replication problem.

Experiments are replicated in the hard sciences all the time, the vast majority of which are successful. It causes huge controversy if a replication fails... except in psychology, where it's apparently everyday business.

[Anonymous No.7495406]

In Dune the fat Baron Harkonnen poisoned one of his untrustworthy aides. The poison was permenantly in the body and would have killed the man had the Baron not had all his meals from that point on laced with the antidote. This assured the Baron that this aide could never leave his service and if he did so it was at great risk.

psychiatry is fueled by the pushing of chemical dependance onto children and the temporarily mental infirm with Meth and neurotranmission interfering ticking time bombs.

Physics does not have a trillion dollar industry funding poor science so as to pump up the outlook of their products which will ensure the salary for the practicing physicists.

I don't know of some evil cabal of hand ringing McScrouges but I do see an industry using tools to assure a client base and profits.

We must consider this to play a factor in the inundation of poor scientific practice in this field.

[Anonymous No.7495413]

>>7493784
How the fuck is psychoanalysis not psychology?

[Anonymous No.7495414]

>>7495403
>Name one other field that has this much of a replication problem.

Physics. Seriously how can you replicate the findings from the LHC when there's only one of them? You can't. As it stands modern particle and nuclear physics has a serious replication problem.

[Anonymous No.7495419]

>>7495414
When you have multiple teams performing the same experiment separately, you dumb fuck.

Are you underaged, or so senile you already forgot about the discovery of the higgs boson? Do you seriously believe everyone just took the word of a single team?

[Anonymous No.7495425]

>>7495414
You can use the LHC to repeat the LHC results. I know it sounds odd, but it works because each collision is a different experiment. Even the, the LHC has three different detectors on it that can be used to verify the others. IF you want an entirely independent verification with a different beam line, you will have to wait until the next collider is built or someone makes some headway in using cosmic rays for this kind of experiment.

[Anonymous No.7495427]

>>7494015
Because you can explain phenomena at higher-levels of organization with elements of the lowest levels of organization.

We might as well start building a car out of sand.

>>7493708
>I got strong opinions about a field I studied in the early 80's in high-school

lol. Did your elemental grade teachers were too strict to you, anon?

[Anonymous No.7495432]

>>7495419
>When you have multiple teams performing the same experiment separately

But they're just repeating the same experiment over and over and over again, repeating a flawed experiment with a different set of experimenters doesn't help. You'd need several different set ups, reaching the conclusion through different means for it to be true replication. But that isn't being done, all that's happening is a general agreement that the methodology is sound and the apparatus is measuring what we designed it to measure. But this isn't replication.

>Are you underaged, or so senile you already forgot about the discovery of the higgs boson?
>Dat sperg rage

Even the director of CERN said they had discovered the Higgs or a "Higgs like" particle, without replication they can't be too sure.

[Anonymous No.7495434]

>>7495427
>We might as well start building a car out of sand.
No, we may as well build it out of individual atoms using nanoassemblers, you plebian.

>2015
>not owning a nanofood replicator
>failing out of Starfleet Academy
topkek

[Anonymous No.7495436]

>>7495432
I don't think you actually understand what "replication" means.

Not surprising coming from a psych undergrad.

[Anonymous No.7495443]

>>7495414
Molecules colliding is not rare. Being able to control the collision and have all the data is. It requires a very rare machine.

Humans are not rare and their study needs only pen and paper.

You went after a possible correlation but it is a false one. You would have better success in furthuring your argument by explaining how different each humans mind is and so each group of people is in fact unreproducible the majority of times.

[Anonymous No.7495452]

>>7495443
But that would only prove that psychology isn't science, if reproducibility is impossible.
>oh wait

[Anonymous No.7495636]

>>7495395
>paper that have no statistical significance
Nice way to show you don't understand what that means. Pretty much all papers that were re-tested had statistically significant results. It's just that for most of them this result was not replicable.

>>7495403
>Name one other field that has this much of a replication problem.
I can't, because the only field for which there are quantitative statistics is psychology. Oh, sweet irony.

[Anonymous No.7495648]

>>7495636
>Pretty much all papers that were re-tested had statistically significant results. It's just that for most of them this result was not replicable.

>I can't, because the only field for which there are quantitative statistics is psychology. Oh, sweet irony.

Do you even look at what you type?

[Anonymous No.7495656]

>>7495648
I do. Apparently you're too much of a moron to understand, because there's nothing wrong with that post.

[Anonymous No.7495660]

>>7495413
>>7495308

It's like saying Alchemy is Chemistry

[Anonymous No.7495676]

>>7495403
>Name one other field that has this much of a replication problem.
Biomedical science, pharmacology, genetics, cellular neuroscience, etc.

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028

[Anonymous No.7495903]

>>7495676
>http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028
#REKT

[Anonymous No.7495909]

When I was young I had severe depersonalization/derealization, psychiatrist told me I need many sessions to recover..
Wasted years of life in that state I felt like I had to deal with it and learn to live like that.
Until one day I started to tell about my condition to my chemical teacher, his reaction was like: wtf your condition is only in your head pick up the pen and work chemistry, just work it'll go away if you work... and I worked, working I ignored the condition, disease went away. Conclusion? I saved money by not going to psychotherapy and also learned chemistry by working more than usual

[Anonymous No.7496073]

>>7495452
lel

You see my subtle ways, Anon. I must be trying to subvert the erronous conclusions our brother is making.

[Anonymous No.7496089]

>>7495909
Anon, what were your thoughts when your chemistry teacher redpilled you back towards mental health?

I'm genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.7496502]

>>7493642
This is the biggest problem with the softer science. Especially Psychology. They are under pressure to publish interesting findings.

Every study has a quoted alpha level, typically 5-10%. Thi smeans that statistically there is only a 5-10% that the finding was a "false positive.

Now if 100 studies are done and only 5-10 actually yield something new and interesting and get published, what are we really reading about in the journals. Basically, 90-95% of studies yield no finding and so get filed somewhere and are never seen again.

[Anonymous No.7496512]

>>7493642
I took a psychology course last semester for an easy A. I actually had to write that psychology was a legitimate "science" like any other science. It was one of the hardest things I had to do in my life.

[Anonymous No.7497158]

>>7496512
Was
>is psychology a real science
a question on the exam?

[Anonymous No.7497953]

>>7495660
... Wait, in this comparison are you claiming psychology is more scientific than physchiatry?

[Anonymous No.7497998]

>>7493642
Psychology is mostly garbage.

[Anonymous No.7498032]

Psychology just become a dumping ground for overachieving Jews, who weren't smart enough to do real science, but wanted to have the prestige of being a PhD.

[Anonymous No.7498049]

>>7495432
It looks like you really don't understand what a reproducible experiment actually is.

[Anonymous No.7498063]

Psychology is a lot like economics in that it's incredibly unscientific but it's also incredibly useful.

[Anonymous No.7498066]

>>7498063
Only in that it justifies completely retarded policies by giving stupid ideas a veener of factual validity.

[Anonymous No.7498072]

>>7498066
Are you implying studying the human mind and human behavior isn't important? And that there's no need to even attempt to apply scientific methodology to do so? As a science it's flawed but it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of years of study on the subject should be just thrown out because it doesn't meet the same standards of reproducibility the natural sciences do.

[Anonymous No.7498082]

>>7498072
>As a science it's flawed but it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of years of study on the subject should be just thrown out because it doesn't meet the same standards of reproducibility the natural sciences do.

>we shouldn't throw away this batch of soup simply because it was poured into a carton made of shit! Sure, the soup has fecal matter in it and so will any other soup we pour into it but that doesn't make it any more shitty than soup poured into a clean carton!

[Anonymous No.7498097]

>>7498082
Obviously that's a false equivalence. I guess I am an idiot for thinking you had a real argument to begin with though.

[Anonymous No.7498132]

Post yfw the Milgram Experiment would turn out the same way every tiem, but the establishment doesn't want to face the implications.

It's why psych is pseud. they don't really want to know.

You know it's true.

[Anonymous No.7498139]

>>7498097
A flawed science built upon flawed fundamentals and a flawed view of what science actually is will only breed flawed ideas.

Very easy concept to understand, for anyone not sucking Psychology's dick

[Anonymous No.7498145]

>>7498097
How is that a false equivalence? The allege studies have no basis for calling them fact, and teaching people to act like they are merely because we have been doing it for such a long time is one of the oddest sunken cost arguments I have ever seen. To claim what psychology has done is studies is to claim what lysenkoism was more than a political movement.

Sorry your major is the equivalent of an art one.

[Anonymous No.7498177]

>>7498132
This is true and it really bothers me.

>https://youtu.be/DZ-F6Waua3Y
>the majority of people will go against their own moral standings just because someone with assumed authority encourages them to continue.
>even unto murdering a stranger

[Anonymous No.7498185]

>>7498145
>how is comparing soup someone took a shit in to scientific study a false equivalence?
really?

Fucking basic shit like the idea of classical conditioning or that we have urges we aren't conscious of come from psychology. The Milgram experiment mentioned by that other anon is a great example of how a very simple psychology experiment can show us a lot about how humans think. I completely agree we shouldn't teach our understanding of psychology as truth, but to say the mind and human behavior isn't worth studying at all is fucking retarded.

>To claim what psychology has done is studies is to claim what lysenkoism was more than a political movement
It sounds like you don't even know what "study" means. To study something does not at all imply scientific method. You can study anything.

>Sorry your major is the equivalent of an art one.
I'm also not a psych major because I actually want to make money.

[Anonymous No.7498192]

>>7498185
> I completely agree we shouldn't teach our understanding of psychology as truth, but to say the mind and human behavior isn't worth studying at all is fucking retarded.

If the Earth is proven not to be the center of the solar system, I shouldn't just throw away that theory because of all the good scientific theories that have come out of it? It doesn't fucking matter if we get good shit out of it or not, it only matters if it's right or wrong.

What can't you understand?

[Anonymous No.7498199]

>>7498192
Specifically what has been proven wrong that is taught as fact in classrooms?

[Anonymous No.7498200]

>>7498177
And then after Milgram murdered the field, this guy comes along and comes along and desecrates the dead body:

http://harpers.org/archive/2006/03/my-crowd/

If there is any field of study so ripe for a conspiracy explanation of why it has failed for so long, it's psych. We landed on the moon. Oswald killed JFK with the rifle from te book building. 9/11 was Egyptian and Saudi terrorists. AND psychology is engaged in a worldwide hush job to produce nothing but fluff pieces and behavioristic detection techniques for the world's governments.

Because even though most every criticism in this thread is right, you can bet the behaviorists at DARPA can tell if you are crook from the way you walk.

[Anonymous No.7498202]

>>7498199
Notice I didn't place any emphasis on the "teaching" portion of your post? Psychology isn't worth studying because the entire field is based on flawed understanding

[Anonymous No.7498206]

>There are still people taking money in exchange for delivering "Freudian" psychotherapy.

[Anonymous No.7498212]

>>7498202
If something is proven wrong of course it should be thrown out. Not every single piece of data that led us to that conclusion should be discarded though. There's no reason we should stop studying the human mind just because some of what we now think is wrong.

You realize just about everything we think we now about physics is an incredibly oversimplification right? Science is not how the universe is but our best attempt at understanding it through models.

[Anonymous No.7498216]

>>7498202
This. Neurobiology and related fields? Study that. The inherent idea of psychology and how it tries to study the mind is shit.

[Anonymous No.7498220]

>>7498216
Once neurology answers the difficult question of consciousness then sure, until then it does not fill the same role.

[Anonymous No.7498224]

>>7498216

Psychology is the study of the emergent properties of that biological structure. I know we value the hardest science only here but don't be ridiculous.

I mean, presumably you've never studied psychology because you disagree with the "inherent idea" of it. So then how can you declare it to be shit? You've never studied it.

Not very scientific of you.

[Anonymous No.7498238]

>>7498177
I watched an abridged version of this video first. I found a great amount of insight from watching this full vid. Some of the men that refuse to go further I can't help but enjoy. I would friend them in an instant. Those that continue and cave in to simple commands of "continue" "the experiement requires you to continue" I feel pity, sadness, detest them. I know many of the people around me at any given time would fall into this. Even people in my own family.

>"I won't continue. He's hollering in there."
>The experiment requires you to continue
>"But who's going to take responsibility for him getting hurt? I'm not taking responsibility for that"
>It is my responsibility. Now continue
>*and the guy goes back to shocking the man who's yelling for help and professed earlier to have a heart condition*
>*and continues to shock the man after he is no longer responsive*

I detest it. I detest it. When or if I find that level of responsibility shirking within myself I pray to non-existent god that I snuff it out.

[Anonymous No.7498263]

>>7498220
That's like claiming astrology is valid until astronomy can answer what importance the position of the stars has on Earth. It's the exact argument you hear people make about the god in the gaps, where one flawed system is said to be valid until the testable one can answer our questions.

>>7498224
Hahahahahahaha. The presumption I find it shit because I haven't studied reminds me to homeopaths and their claim that I just don't understand their methods. Luckily, we know that's a bullshit excuse. I merely have to look at the results of the studies, and the rigor of the research, and their consistency with real life and Incan dismiss homeopaths. Likewise, I can dismiss psychology for the very same reason. Dismiss a whole field because said field has yet to prove itself scientific is, actually, the most scientific thing you can do. Or shall we all start accepting orgone technology?

[Anonymous No.7498264]

>>7498220
>Once neurology answers the difficult question of consciousness then sure, until then it does not fill the same role.

Only a psychologist would say some stupid shit like that

[Anonymous No.7498269]

>>7498200
I need help understanding this paper. Would someone break it down for me?

[Anonymous No.7498276]

>>7498269
>The basic hypothesis behind the Mob Project was as follows: seeing how all culture in New York was demonstrably commingled with scenesterism, the appeal of concerts and plays and readings and gallery shows deriving less from the work itself than from the social opportunities the work might engender, it should theoretically be possible to create an art project consisting of pure scene—meaning the scene would be the entire point of the work, and indeed would itself constitute the work.

Rest of the article goes into why this is the case

[Anonymous No.7498282]

>>7498263

I like the comparison between psych and homeopathy. Very honest of you.

I don't have a psych degree and neither am i a psych student. I simply recognize their honest attempts at science and how the brain is a complicated piece of equipment with not very well understood emergent properties.

But whatever, man. Think what you like if it makes you feel like you're better than someone else.

[Anonymous No.7498284]

>>7498263
It's not at all like that. There are plenty of psychology experiments that have yielded very interesting results that can be replicated. Multiple have already been mentioned in this thread. Astrology on the other hand cannot be tested.

>>7498264
>hurr you're wrong because I say it's stupid
good one

[Anonymous No.7498301]

>>7498282
I don't recognize anything but attempts at putting a scientific face at something which clearly isn't scientific.

>>7498284
And alchemy had plenty of experiments of scientific interest. It doesn't mean alchemy is any more valid. When the very core assumptions of your "science" are in correct, a few positive results mean nothing.

[Anonymous No.7498313]

>>7498276
thank you. Now I'll reread it.

[Anonymous No.7498316]

>>7498301
In my very first post in this thread I called psychology "incredibly unscientific" so I don't understand what you're arguing if not "psychology isn't worth studying", to which alchemy is actually a great example of why it is worth studying. Alchemy helped develop laboratory techniques and experimental methods that was later adopted by chemistry. Was alchemy even a science? No. Was the work done in it worthwhile? Yes.

[Anonymous No.7498322]

>>7498301
>>7498316
In addition, I also said that psychology could theoretically be replaced by neurology once neurology could explain consciousness, similar to how chemistry replaced alchemy.

I actually like the alchemy example a lot. Hell, half of what we're doing now that we call science will be comparable to alchemy in 10,000 years.

[Anonymous No.7498336]

>>7498322
> I also said that psychology could theoretically be replaced by neurology once neurology could explain consciousness

If you really don't see why that statement is stupid as fuck then I guess there's no point continuing this argument. Should've fucking known psych-fags would spout some incredibly stupid shit

[Anonymous No.7498348]

>>7498336
>It's stupid because I say so
I'd absolutely love for you to annihilate my arguments using data and logic and am disappointed at your unwillingness to do so

[Anonymous No.7498396]

>>7498348
Since he wont, I will

Just because thing A cant explain thing B and thing C can, with flawed logic. That doesnt mean thing C is valid until it explains thing B better than thing A

If that didnt make any sense then know that an incorrect explaination is not better than no explaination at all. It is actually worse because it delays people from finding a real explaination

Just like religion and the origins of the universe

Although I do think psych is worth studying, I don't think this a reason why. Your other stuff is valid though

[Anonymous No.7498405]

>>7498396
>Just because thing A cant explain thing B and thing C can, with flawed logic. That doesnt mean thing C is valid until it explains thing B better than thing A
I goofed

*Just because A cant explain B, but C can by using flawed logic. That doesnt mean thing C is valid until A explains B better than thing C