>psychology is a pseudo science

File: 1481638345237.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>How relevant a field is = How scientific a field is

>>8594248
Psychologically is categorically a pseudo-science, nothing can be done about that.

But the guy who came up with that classification is a philosopher so, as anything those crackpots publish, you are free to disregard that as the ramblings of some mental drug addict, as are all philosophers.

>>8594248
It not being useless does not mean it is not pseudoscience

People can get results using unscientific but useful applications

>>8594279
freudian and lacanian psychoanalisis, the only kind that even begins to unravel the complexities of the human mind in the way it deserves are not sciences in the way of hard sciences and never ever claimed to be, they dont usually act as a soft science either, they behave much more like humanities or art, because that is much closer to the subtelties of human behaviour, which if it is even possible to analyze its infinite complexity we are very VERY far from that. so for now its the best bet we got

File: 1479822522861.jpg (61KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 431x450px

>>8594248
>"studies" "show"

>>8595802
Please have some punctation marks: ........,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;;;

Also best bet can still be bad.

>>8594248
>dumbass doctor doesn't know reasons for symptoms because he's a dumbass
>patient must be making it up