[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 205 KB, 650x586, Hall_Freud_Jung_in_front_of_Clark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9762568 No.9762568 [Reply] [Original]

Is psychology a real science?
Why not?

>> No.9762832

>>9762568
It is a good way to destroy the family structure of goyim societies.

>> No.9762848

>>9762568
Yes, they construct experiments.
/thread

>> No.9762857

>>9762568
>Is psychology a real science?
No, because psychologists do not use the scientific method.

>> No.9762861

Why major in psychology when you can do

Cognitive Science
Neuroscience
Neurobiology
Symbolic Systems

>> No.9763154

>>9762568
As I said for the past 2 months : it's only worth something when it's linked to the brain (neurology)
This shoulw be pinned btw

>> No.9763224

>>9762568
No.
>Why not?
No math. No replicability.

>> No.9763504

Studying Freud at a Uni is purely gossiping.

Cognitive theory and neuropsychology are scientific, though.

There are other areas which are philosophically interesting as well such as Complex Psychology (Jung), Wilhelm Reich's theory of sexuality and the old Gestalt movements, such as Lewin's.

There are also others like Fenomenology but these didn't strike my fancy so I can't say much about them

>t. Psych major

>> No.9763525
File: 468 KB, 968x1286, freud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9763525

>> No.9764131

>>9762857
They do infer theories from data.

>> No.9764171
File: 140 KB, 1280x720, personality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9764171

>>9762568
Psychometrics (IQ, Personality) and Evolutionary Psychology are the least bullshit part of psychology.
But even Psychometrics can be quite flawed (MBTI as example).
Other areas of Psychology are even less reliable.

>> No.9764198

>>9764171
Evolutionary psychology is poop, half of it is unfalsifiable after-the-fact explanations

>> No.9764242

>>9762568
No. They butcher the scientific method and 90% of all psychologists ive met (work at a uni) are absolutely retarded about data analysis.

>> No.9764496

>>9764198
>unfalsifiable
How is this relevant? Can anyone show me a research paper falsifying a *scientific* hypothesis?

>> No.9764540

>>9764496
>How is this relevant?
It's of the utmost relevance, since without it you're simply talking about pseudoscience.

>Can anyone show me a research paper falsifying a *scientific* hypothesis?
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism
>Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of everyday situations, but were falsified by Galileo's experiments
>The Youngian wave theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous aether) replaced Newton's (and many of the Classical Greeks') particles of light but in turn was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment

>> No.9764564

>>9764540
I was thinking that science is based on beliefs and their usefulness, and not on absolute truth or falsehood. Can you falsify the statement that one of the coins in your wallet has a 0.51 probability of falling heads?

>> No.9764571

>>9764564
Also, both of your examples were also after-the-fact explanations.

>> No.9764573

>>9764564
>Can you falsify the statement that one of the coins in your wallet has a 0.51 probability of falling heads?
Of course.

>> No.9764575

>>9764571
>Also, both of your examples were also after-the-fact explanations.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want a scientific hypothesis that was falsified before being hypothesized?

>> No.9764576

>>9764573
With what probability?

>> No.9764579

>>9764576
>With what probability?
What with what probability?

>> No.9764580

>>9764575
New theories are based on data that we do not have a good explanation for.

>> No.9764583

>>9764580
>New theories are based on data that we do not have a good explanation for.
Theories can come before data, i.e. string theory.

>> No.9764594

>>9764579
Propose an experiment that falsifies a coin being 0.51, and we'll calculate with what probability we can say that the claim is false.

>> No.9764597

>>9764583
I don't know string theory, but I believed it was an explanation of discrepancies of QM and GR.

>> No.9764599

>>9764594
>Propose an experiment that falsifies a coin being 0.51
Flip the coin repeatedly. What's supposed to be the difficulty here? It's no different than falsifying the claim that acceleration due to gravity is 5 instead of ~9.81

>> No.9764606

>>9764599
The difficulty is that hypothesis 0.51 can still be true regardless of any number of outcomes.

>> No.9764611

>>9764599
I flipped it five times, it came out heads 3 times. That's exactly what you'd expect from a coin with 51% chance of landing on heads. What now?

>> No.9764613

>>9764606
>The difficulty is that hypothesis 0.51 can still be true regardless of any number of outcomes.
Except for the outcome of having contradictory data.

>> No.9764616

>>9764613
i can't imagine an series of coin flips that would contradict it falling heads with probability 0.51, or 0.5.

>> No.9764617

>>9764611
>What now?
You keep flipping, since your data supports the hypothesis of 60%, not 51%.

>> No.9764620

>>9764616
>i can't imagine an series of coin flips that would contradict it falling heads with probability 0.51, or 0.5.
Can you imagine a series of always landing on tails? Because that would contradict having a 0.51 probability of heads.

>> No.9764621

>>9764620
>always
How can you know though, you only have a finite number of examples?

>> No.9764623

>>9764620
It wouldn't. The chance of n consecutive tails only contradicts the probability of tails being 0

>> No.9764624

>>9764621
>How can you know though, you only have a finite number of examples?
Are you saying a finite number of coin flips can't always land on tails?

>> No.9764625

>>9764623
>The chance of n consecutive tails only contradicts the probability of tails being 0
No, it contradicts the probability of tails being anything but 1.

>> No.9764626

>>9764617
How long do I keep flipping?

>> No.9764627

>>9764625
You can 10000 tails in a row and you still won't know whether the next one will be heads or tails. Or 10001. Or 10002. Or ...

>> No.9764629

>>9764626
>How long do I keep flipping?
As long as your experiment is designed for.

>> No.9764630

>>9764627
>You can 10000 tails in a row and you still won't know whether the next one will be heads or tails.
That's correct.

>> No.9764633

>>9764624
I don't know if you're trolling, but for any outcome on N number of flips, we can calculate the probability of the heads being 0.51, and it's not going to be zero.

>> No.9764634

>>9764629
And the experiment to decide whether the coin has a 51% chance of landing on heads is designed for how long exactly?

>> No.9764637

>>9764633
>I don't know if you're trolling, but for any outcome on N number of flips, we can calculate the probability of the heads being 0.51, and it's not going to be zero.
What does that have to do with my post? All I said is that it's possible to have a series of coin flips that are all tails.

>> No.9764641

>>9764637
I was saying that there isn't an experiment that disproves a coin being 0.51.

>> No.9764642

>>9764634
>And the experiment to decide whether the coin has a 51% chance of landing on heads is designed for how long exactly?
As long as you want. But if you want your results to support 51% then you'll want to flip at least 100 times since otherwise your results will always have a significant difference from 51%.

>> No.9764644

>>9764641
>I was saying that there isn't an experiment that disproves a coin being 0.51.
Yes, flip the coin repeatedly.

>> No.9764646
File: 171 KB, 570x440, 55185760-b564-48b2-b5b8-c426f84d3ed2_570.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9764646

>>9764564
Stop being a douchebag. You know exactly what falsifiability is. Stop ruining the thread . This is your final warning.

>> No.9764650

>>9764646
I don't, I'm reading the page on Wikipedia, and I don't see a useful definition.

>> No.9764655
File: 100 KB, 1920x1043, heads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9764655

>>9764642
Ok, I did it 100 times, and got 42 heads. What does this mean?

>>9764644
"flip the coin repeatedly" is not an scientific experiment

>> No.9764657

>>9764650
Go read up on the scientific method little guy.
Let the grown ups talk in peace

>> No.9764659

>>9764655
>"flip the coin repeatedly" is not an scientific experiment
What's not scientific about it?

>> No.9764663

>>9762568
>Is psychology a real science?
Yes.
>Why not?
Psychologists predict falsifiable hypothesis and test them using scientific method.

>> No.9764665

>>9764650
do your own research please . Stop being a dumb philosophy undergrad.

T.philosophy grad.

>> No.9764671

>>9764659
You didn't define how often "repeatedly" is. You didn't say what the expected outcome is if the probability of heads is 51%. You didn't say what the expected outcome is if the probability of heads isn't 51%.

>> No.9764674

>>9764663
What about reproducability.

>> No.9764675

>>9762861
psychiatry is superior to psychology meme

>> No.9764676

>>9764665
I'm not, science is clearly based on belief, and apparently some people want to pull some magic criteria out of thin air.

>> No.9764678

>>9764671
>You didn't define how often "repeatedly" is.
That's up to the experimenter.

>> No.9764679

>>9764671
B8.

Alright guys wrap it up. Stop responding to this kid

>> No.9764684

>>9764676
Cringe
stop being such a philosophy undergrad

>> No.9764690

>>9764674
Good experiments in psychology, just like in any science, are reproducible.

>> No.9764693

>>9764678
>the details of this experiment can be choosen by the experimenter ;^)
Sounds very reproducible

>>9764679
>I have no argument
>I know, I'll just call it bait

>> No.9764696

>>9764693
>Sounds very reproducible
That's the point.

>> No.9764708

>>9764693
>being blown out this hard
Go back to intro to formal logic

>> No.9764711

>>9764708
blown out by what? The lack of arguments you have?

>>9764696
If you didn't get it, that was supposed to be ironic

>> No.9764714

>>9764711
trying too hard at this point

>> No.9764718

>>9764711
>If you didn't get it, that was supposed to be ironic
What do you mean? Are you saying it's not reproducible?

>> No.9764721

>>9764718
i think his point was that the 'experiment' is a joke, hopefully.

>> No.9764722

>>9764718
Yes, I am

>>9764714
Your "arguments" so far have been:
>B8. Alright guys wrap it up. Stop responding to this kid
>>being blown out this hard
>Go back to intro to formal logic
>trying too hard at this point
It seems like the only thing you can do is post memes

>> No.9764725

>>9764722
>Yes, I am
Why is it not?

>> No.9764733

>>9764725
welcome to 30 minutes ago, see >>9764671
alternatively read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

>> No.9764740

>>9764733
>welcome to 30 minutes ago, see >>9764671
But letting the experimenter choose what "repeatedly" means supports reproducibility, did you not read the link you posted?

>> No.9764755

>>9762568
No, all studies are done on white college students.

>> No.9764764

>>9764755
>all studies are done on white college students
[citation needed]

>> No.9764790

>2 people seriously arguing that you can prove/disprove a coin having a chance of 51% to land on heads
>0 mentions of the binomial test
>0 mentions of confidence intervals
>0 mentions of alpha error
/sci/ - science and math