is neuroscience a meme? is it actual science? my friend told

at least it's more sciency than psychology

>>8109193
lol, what a good rule of thumb. Haven't heard that one yet, thanks op.

You should do you want though regardless of what /sci/ thinks. Just make sure your investment pans out (for some just gaining that knowledge is enough for it to pan out, but obviously monetary compensation is desirable//necassary

>>8109193
Well, by that logic, physics, chemistry and biology aren't sciences either since they are physical sciences and life science accordingly. How about you read up on what neuroscience is and decide for yourself? Also, I've heard so many people tell me they are interested in neuroscience it's not even funny. Neuroscience is a subfield of biology. Are you interested in biology? Do you know anything about it?

If you trust your friend's dumb definition, you probably won't succeed in science anyway, so don't bother.

Neuroscience is just a broad category of many disciplines... ex. Neuropharmacology, neurology, neurochemistry...

>>8109235
blah blah blah, answer the damn question instead of trying to sound smart ya fucking weirdo

>>8109235
>>8109241

He is right though....

>>8109222
Physical science is a meme and is not science.

>>8109263
Ok, this thread enlightened me. In order to replicate what I learned I will found Psychology Science.

Listen guys! Psychology is finally a science! :D

Science is not science

>>8109212
Funny thing is that "pyschology" actually translates as sth like "science of mind/conciousness", so yeah, OP is correct that it's not a science.

Science is now a meme

>>8109705
It's ackshually psychological science

>>8109834
Science was always a meme.

>>8109193
>only want to join a real science and not get ridiculed
Does it really matter how your field is labelled by others?
Stop caring so much about what others think and just study what you really want to.

>>8109193
>only want to join a real science and not get ridiculed
Newton spent most of his time studying alchemy and he's basically responsible for our present understanding of physics.

>>8109193
>is neuroscience a meme?

Yes, neuroscience basically works as follow:

>get a brain scanner
>ask subject what particular mental state he's having
>see what brain state correlates to it
>pretend this process has explanatory power and it's not just a matter of classification

50 years neuroscience ladies and gentleman :^)

>>8111774
Sadly many people don't even get that.

>>8112112
HAHAHAHAHA u fukin faggot

holy shit the amount of ignorance today's neets and 30 year old min wage workers have

>>8112140
Prove me wrong, faggot.

File: 0781778174.jpg (42KB, 387x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 387x500px

>>8109193
>is it actual science?

of course

>>8109193
>my friend told me any field with the word "science" in it is not actually science and just pretending to be


funny, I heard the same from someone here on this very board

Neuroscience is absolutely a science, and a hard one at that. You could say it's a part of biology.

Psychology is not.

>>8109776
Not all things that claim to be science follow the scientific method.
Medicine is 40% conjecture; this includes Neurology.
Social studies/"sciences" are 75% conjecture.

>>8112152
How about you actually read some neuro research, not just the kind that was presented to you in your psych 101 class.

Most neuroscience research is hard biology and chemistry.

>>8109193
>my friend told me any field with the word "science" in it is not actually science and just pretending to be

>/sci/ - Science & Math

WAIT SO THIS MEANS THAT SCI IS NOT A REAL SCIENCE BOARD.

i think this guy speaks the truth

>>8112191
Biology is not a hard science

>>8112112
dumbest post of the week award

>>8109193
>neuro "science"

>>8109193
Neuroscience is a science, and CS takes a bit of time to get going but at advanced levels it does become a science

>>8113228
>Computer "science"

>>8113238
Yes, at higher levels it essentially does become one. You don't think that it's just Java/C code monkeying forever, right? Or are you under the impression that CS just ends halfway through undergrad?

>>8113238
>>8113269

the best part is that people that's saying programming is easy usually don't really know real programming, they think they know programming after learning about functions and loops. its the same as people thinking they know math after finishing high school.

>my friend told me any field with the word "science" in it is not actually science and just pretending to be.

That's the dumbest argument I've heard in a awhile. If you follow that logic, then neurophysiology has nothing to do with science either, and neurologists aren't real doctors. Which means we have no verified knowledge or understanding of how the human nervous system works.

>not get ridiculed

You're being ridiculed as of this moment, cuck.

>>8109193
>making life decisions based on the contrarian opinions of an anime imageboard
lol

>>8113269
>Yes, at higher levels it essentially does become one
In what sense? Please be specific.

File: f.png (422KB, 1572x1200px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1572x1200px

>>8112160
Too young to explore space.
Too old to explore the seas.
In time to explore the brain.

Guys, in my nearest Universities i'm basically forced to do Psychology in order to get a Neuroscience masters
Will it become a worthless degree once i'm out?

>>8113636
>That's the dumbest argument I've heard in a awhile. If you follow that logic, then neurophysiology has nothing to do with science either, and neurologists aren't real doctors. Which means we have no verified knowledge or understanding of how the human nervous system works.

I think you got the point the wrong way around.

>>8114578
Not necessarily. Just take the psych classes that will have more bio. Maybe do a bio or chem minor too.

>>8109193
Women seem really drawn to neurosciences for some reason....not that that means anything

File: free_man.png (9KB, 224x228px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 224x228px

Hey!
Remember that time Neurologists had that experiment that was reproducible and everyone got the same results?
ME NEITHER.

>>8114629
Are you memeing?

>>8114679
Scientific Method isn't a meme.

I dont really get the point of a scientific board on an anime website giving in on the most polemic discussion if a science is "soft" or "hard". Social sciences are considered to be soft and natural sciences are considered to be hard. They are both sciences however, anybody telling you otherwise is fucking retarded and obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about.

All siences are born from phylosophy (love of knowledge), so every "hard" science is born of the "softest" of all, just take this fact to see how retarded distinguishing between them is.

Anyway, there is a difference between natural and social sciences: Experiments are more valid and so are the theories in natural sciences than in social sciences. But thats not because natural sciences are superior, it is just harder to make accurate predictions about human behaviour than about steel beams behaving under certain conditions.

Take one of the main heuristic principles: Oakhams razor (accept the theory with the least hypothesis), in social sciences you have to take more (and sometimes quiet stupid) hypothesis into account to get to your point than in natural sciences, because it is just to complex to perfectly validate a hypothesis. Humans are the most unpredictable variable we actually have in science and that makes social sciences so complex (and quiet often so useless, look at the recent economic crisis).

My answer to your cancerous question OP is: Neuroscience is a science like every other fucking science. People trying to tell you otherwise are trying to push their pathetic self-confidence and will most likely end up at mc donnalds.

Pic related: Induction and deduction are the main scientific methods. Any science calling itself "science" is working with them.

TL;DR: People distinguishing between soft and hard sciences are fucking retarded.

File: image.gif (4KB, 246x219px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 246x219px

>>8114813
Now with pic.

File: Stop+quoting+the+content+with+a+reaction+face+_926a7a326638fd2723b418facbb42641.jpg (129KB, 400x505px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 400x505px

>>8112191
>Biology
>Hard Science

>>8114813
Soft sciences are not sciences, kid. A key aspect of science is that findings must be able to be replicated by independent groups. Less than 50% of psychology studies pass this test (Google it). I won't even entertain the thought of trollop like sociology being considered a science.

The real argument should be not whether they are a science but whether they are valuable.

It's supposed to be science and math, you can't try one and ignore the other in safety.

>>8114840
You did not read my post, did you?
I wrote that social sciences are less valid (replicability is just a part of validity) than natural sciences. But that does not make them less science, this statement allone is most infantile.

As I said before: It is much more complex to measure human behaviour than natural phenomena. Because human behaviour is influenced by countless variables which are not measurable.

But that does not make social science less a science. The methods are not the problem here (economists for example are using mathematical methods). The problem is that social scientists are measuring the most complex variable of all: Humans.

>>8114858
Expecting nuance on /psy/? Bold.

File: image.jpg (68KB, 960x573px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x573px

>>8115181
It is even worse than on /x here...

>>8109241
Every single one of those is an "actual science" dummy.

>>8112463
Your percentages are 100% conjecture

>gf is a neuroscience student
>spends all of her time writing essays and memorising things
Seems like a meme to me, OP.

>>8115788
Lots to learn before you put it into practice. What do you expect her to be doing? Home imaging?

>>8109193
Why would it not be? Even if its trending in popscience-circles and becoming somewhat redundant, it still is very much a scientific field in that it studies natural phenomena without employing cultural or subjective bias.

>>8113269
Computer Science is not science. It has more in common with engineering and some subsets of math than science.

>>8109193
Try reading even a fraction of Kandel's Principles of Neural Science and I think you'll have your answer. It requires at least a working understanding of all scientific disciplines from physics to physiology at various scales of analysis from biochemistry to the neuron to the functioning brain. To clarify, we aren't talking about meme-tier, pig in a dress, cognitive neuroscience bullshit. That is psychology with oversold window dressings. It's just as horse shit and underpowered as most psychology research.

>>8112160
Fuck. I guess those lazy bastards finally got around to putting out the fourth edition.

>>8114629
Yeah, it fucking pisses me off too when primarily clinical researchers use shitty experimental design they don't understand and put out overhyped papers that don't replicate. My field has been really helped by meta-analyses, though. Lack of statistical power makes comparing "results" practically useless unless they are pooled.

>>8115788
Sounds like an undergrad who isn't on the harder end of the discipline or seeking out good research opportunities. Girls in neurobiology/ neuroscience programs are a really mixed bag at that level of academia. Tends to capture the ones who are too proud to do psych, but find the concepts too interesting to study something else.

>>8114858
wow and I wasn't even expecting an intelligent response in this whole thread. good job.

my faith in the NEET internet science community is somewhat restored

>>8114813
>Some 2 digit IQ obese woman writting about mansplaining is a scientist according to you
And you call us retarded

File: James_Holmes_2506390b.jpg (70KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x387px

World's most famous neuroscientist

File: image.jpg (191KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 517x768px

>>8118643
>Yes nigger, as if you absolutely narrow minded full retards were even able to think about anything constructively than quantitatives
Lmfao