Psychology isn't a "real" science

Math is also not a science.

>>8744301
>please reply with actual evidence that you are right and not just your opinion as opinions mean nothing.

This sums up why psychology is not a science. Just replace "reply" with "publish papers".

>insert link to that paper that showed 70% of psychology research was literally made up

Psychology is like half science, half art, not that that detracts from it in anyway. I would say if anything it adds to it, because you're combining the rigors of the scientific method with the creativity of your imagination to solve real problems. I wouldn't place much value on what you read here, /pol/ turned most of the site into a cesspool and you have genuine morons everywhere passing their uneducated opinion off as facts.

>>8744485
Are you implying that other sciences don't require creativity?

Psychology attract people that dismiss the scientific method when it's being taught. How many times do you see a fucking survey with leading questions being used in a fucking study? I'm sick and tired of it.

All the psychologists I know are 100 IQ females that don't have intellectual empathy to save their life, reading their psych books and treating it like gospel. Their critical thinking ability is equal to the average social studies major.

When practiced by these kinds of people, I think psychology is 100% pseudoscience.


Otherwise? Psychology is less rigorous by requirement, because the human brain is a black box until we figure it out. Science will remain unaccomplished until they figure out the entire process of human thought. Until then, it's just Freudian levels of philosophy.

>>8744301
Well hey
at least it's not psychiatry

Psychology and psychiatry are Jewish inventions

>>8744654
>attract people that dismiss the scientific

This is true, but most actual researchers I know are smart (PhD, not psyd or masters in counseling garbage) and capable scientists who know far more math and physics than the average biologist, chemist or computer scientist. Lots of quantitative knowledge is necessary to appropriately interpret the mess that is behavioral data.

Keep in mind psychologists often play up their work and findings for that sweet grant money.

t. neuroscientist who published once in a clinical psych journal as an undergrad (it was a meta-analysis)

Maybe I was just lucky with my department. 1/4 of our faculty were direct grad students of skinner.

>>8744654
This is actually true. Not to mention psychology is basically a matter of opinion.

I think the main issue with psychology when you compare it with 'hard' sciences (physics, chemistry etc.) is that it lacks the same predictive capability. While the psychologists succeed in categorizing things such as disorders, it is virtually impossible to quantify their results, and probably useless to as well. The amount of error and bias control they need to do when designing their studies is truly remarkable. That is why a well designed psychological study is so impressive, one that can actually lead to objective findings. Most psychological studies need to be read with a grain of salt, since not all psychologists use the best statistical methods and their findings are typically subjective conclusions.

I take all psychological findings with a grain of salt for these reasons. As a discipline or career I have no problem with it because it does help those with mental disorders and shit. I just know my mind prefers more concrete science

>>8744301
People tend to dismiss psychology as a science based on the claim that it neither has the same predictability nor explanatory power of the physical science, i.e. physics and chemistry. Obviously, many other fields don't, such as astronomy or climatology, but you'll rarely hear that these aren't sciences. Moreover, few would be so bold as to dismiss evolutionary biology as unscientific, and this in spite of how soft of a science it truly is. Also, why people would judge ethology scientific but any study of human behavior pseudoscience is mysterious. My guess is that there is a bias against the study of human behavior. This is likely the same reason why studying the social structure of animals is seen as scientific, but social sciences like economics or sociology are not.

>>8744301
I like this thread. We need more threads with reasonable people like this

>>8745089
Unfortunately, /sci/ threads tend to be about IQ or some other ridiculous topic. I wish threads like these received more attention, but apparently people who go onto a science message board don't actually want to discuss science.

Psychology is theoretically a science but in practice it isn't (at least half the time maybe even 80% of the time ).

Seems like most studies don't take the scientific method seriously

>>8745143
>Unfortunately, /sci/ threads tend to be about IQ or some other ridiculous topic
There's nothing ridiculous about IQ, it's the most well researched metric in cognitive psychology.

>>8744301
I honestly think that psychology is a real science. Just because you have seen a psychologist doesn't mean that you truly know the field. Also I'm a bit annoyed about that people actually think that mathematics also isn't science and most of those people think that mathematics is only arithmetic. That's kind off interesting because almost all sciences without mathematics would only be philosophy.

>>8745333
I should have been clearer, I'm referring to threads of the sort
>my IQ is 235, am I a brainlet?
and other types of shitposts.

Anything you can make observations of, collect data on, then make predictions on is science.

In some ways I would argue social sciences are more difficult in some aspects. In hard sciences, everything is connected; biology, chemistry, and physics can all be interconnected. Most observations and theories in social science are stand-alone and require a lot more evidence.

>>8744301
Medicine -> Bloodletting
Cognitive neuroscience -> Psychology