Do you guys consider psychology a real science?

ya

>>8335221
ya

>>8335233
>>8335226

Why does /pol/ say otherwise?

>>8335241
it hurts their feelings

>>8335241
because its not based on numerical evidence

File: not_a_science.png (618KB, 1776x1112px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 1776x1112px

No and you can stop samefagging in this thread.

Soft Science relies on Projection, Circular Logic, Confirmation Bias, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, Psychological Effects (ironically) and Flawed Heuristic Methods.
Science itself is supposed to be centered on Empricism, and as such Hard Scientists scoff at how often Soft Science practitioners are at odds with each other in regards to whom is using Confirmation Bias in their fields.
Psychologists ironically get a PhD degree (Degree of Philosophy) yet are not required to pass an examination on Epistemology nor Logical Fallacies.?

If it can't be tested, positive or false, then it's not Science. Science is defined by Empirical Testing.
>But what about Positivism issues?
Modern Empricism is Post-positivist meaning it uses Post-Positivism, Falsificationism and Deductive Analytics... analyzing for biases and fallacies in the process.

>>8335256
ya

>>8335221
It could become one, if psychologists would allow it to.

>>8335221
It's getting there. Some of the research now is there, and it's moving in the right direction. It'd very comparable to biology in the 18th century (around the time of lamark). Advances in neuroscience have helped.

>>8335263
They can't allow for falsificationism.
They have to project and then confabulate and circle in confirmation bias.
That's 99% of what the field is.
If you forced them to make predictions and admit when they're wrong, then they'd all kill themselves.
It's a field solely populated by irrational narcissists that equate flawed self-serving intuition with truth... and the "science" they use just helps them prove it.
As long as they're not required to test or discover scientific laws, it will never be a science.
Never.
It's related more so to cults than to science.

>>8335263
>>8335270
They completely reject BOTH Positivism (prediction testing) and Falsificationism (prediction testing and data analysis).
It's inherently anti-empirical, therefore anti-science... not even "soft" science.
It never was.
Social "sciences" have an intent, and it's not to discover truth, it's to justify beliefs.
It's a religion and only a religion.

>>8335275

Damn my nigga going hard in the paint right now. Psychbabbys where you at??

File: images (1).jpg (7KB, 216x215px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 216x215px

>>8335275

what about in terms of medication research and psychological state ?

if a higher proportion of people with 'x' mental illness 'do better' psychologically on 'y' medication, with a high enough sample size, won't means testing show that 'y' medication is better than 'z' ?

how is that not science ? isn't it basically discovering 'more' or 'less' true things about the biology of our own species, as opposed to other species ?

If not, someone please explain the difference to me

From biofag

File: 1458830535385.gif (864KB, 160x270px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 160x270px

>>8335256

Roasted: the post

File: Quotefancy-16417-3840x2160.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>8335241
/pol/ reads a lot, mainly news, but they only discuss events.
It's usual there to find people rejecting college education because they think their truth is absolute. It's fun to discuss with them but they can be wrong often.

>>8335299

>how is that not science?

Because what you have described is not psychology. You could replace 'mental illness' with any given biological variable and deduce a conclusion on health aspects such as tolerance or mental state. This is pharmaceutical testing at a minimum.

Psychology, universally, attempts to establish fundamental basis by which humans develop certain psychological climates with respect to cognition and behaviour - which can range from: 'Daddy didn't compliment me enough when I was little' to biological pre-determinism.

>>8335256
>Soft Science relies on Projection, Circular Logic, Confirmation Bias, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, Psychological Effects (ironically) and Flawed Heuristic Methods.

Ah damn, then we can all agree that biology is a hard science?

>>8335299
Because circular conjecture is fallacious and sophist not science.
Do you not understand the concept of the "post hoc ergo prompter hoc" fallacy, placebo effects, circular reporting, data dredging, etc?

Most Biology and Neurology is Science, but when it comes down to Psychiatry, they don't test, they make claims and adamantly fight against the concept of testing and having to prove their claims.

Sidenote: Sedatives and Stimulants don't balance anything, they distract from functioning.

Also: Argument from Single Cause is also a fallacy. In fact there are loads of fallacies associated with "this therefore that" reasoning.

80% of people diagnosed "ill" aren't even ill, diseased or psychotic.
They're complaining or people are complaining about their lack of conformity or submission.

Read more.

>>8335221
No, not at all. A real science can have test results performed around the world or anywhere in the universe and have the same exact results every time. Psychology can't even do that between 2 people.

>>8335221
No.
http://www.nature.com/news/first-results-from-psychology-s-largest-reproducibility-test-1.17433?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
Psychology as a science is simply not working as a scientific field should. If replication fails to reproduce the results most of the time, it is clear that psychology is failing as a science.

Maybe more so now because how far data science has come. There is probably so much data on psychology right now out there in facebook and google only being used for advert purposes just waiting to be analyzed. Things like the OkCupid data are just a start in this trend I could imagine.

>>8335539
>pretending this problem is localized to pscyhology
>pretending it's a real problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7K3s_vi_1Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcgO2v3JjCU

p-hacking is the real problem.

>>8335346
>but when it comes down to Psychiatry, they don't test,

I'm afraid you actually believe this.

No. Out of the social sciences I think it's only Microeconomics that has the same repeatability as STEM.

>>8335586
just to add, iirc it has a higher repeatability than Biology

>>8335339
Of course. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb or baiting.

Radical behaviorism is science in any definition of science.

>>8335339
Yes, and perhaps neuroscience but we know just so little about the brain.

>>8335221
It's under as arts at my college. Associate of arts is what psychology is under at Red Rocks community college

>>8335680

kek

File: dddddddddddddddddd.jpg (5KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 247x204px

>>8335326

My little brother is a psych major who is doing exactly this, creating spreadsheets of test subject responses to changes in medication regimes, and means testing between medications, + interpretation = publication

I can see how it might not be considered a hard science, but it is a pretty respectable sub-set of a shitty field imo.

>>8335339
Yes, the majority of biology is hard science. Though some evolutionary hypotheses are not testable in any rigorous sense so the "just so stories " of evobio fall under softer science in my opinion.

File: scaridae.jpg (8KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 253x199px

>>8335771

using synapomorphies perhaps not, but now we use gene sequencing - basically destroyed alot of peoples lifes work, and yes they were cool with it; because science.

I think that could be a good rule of thumb, as a metric; 'if the majority of your life work is proven unequivocally to be incorrect, will you be mad?'

if the answer is no, you're probably involved in a hard science.

pic related

>>8335241
/pol/ only hates psychology unless they are talking about IQ and how dumb niggers are, then psychology is the most rigorous thing ever.

>>8335662
>When you have yet to obtained sufficient information about a field it stops being science

>>8335796
I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm not saying the cladistics portion of evobio is soft science. I'm saying the 'why did altruism evolve?' part of evobio is soft science.

>>8335251

>doesn't know about positivist schools of psychology

>>8335275

>all psychology is the same

>>8335221
> Do you guys consider psychology a real science?

Only in classified circles.

The shit they teach you is wrong on purpose.

>>8335221
Anyone got the source ?

>>8336026

sounds like /phil/ to me

soft science confirmed

>>8338136

Here you go champ >>>/h/4364029

>>8335221
I don't, or at least people have to admit that it is far off from anything like math, physics, or chemistry. I also hate the pretentious "I can see into ur hed u only disagree with mee becuz u r insecure" types.

>>8335313
>posting that ugly whore

>>8335241
pol hates sociology

>>8335221
source?

>>8335221
No, but it is certainly very useful.

No. And while a lot of psychology ought to be questioned, the fact that it isn't a science necessarily doesn't make it useless

>>8335241
because it doesn't tie in together well with their agenda

>>8335221
What is science?