I am asking this totally seriously. I do not understand how psychology

>>8889882
They're not considered sciences.

>>8889882
They apply the scientific method, they are sciences. However they've just failed to define their object of study or control their variables and are terrible sciences that almost always just become engines of confirmation bias.

>>8889882
they call them "soft" science.
because they apply the scientific method. however, true academic rigor is impossible.

to the point where you see social "Scientists" running statistics on other scientists studies to test for bias in sample selection / rejection

>>8889882
They're only sciences to people in those fields. I half want to switch to psych because the standards are pretty low and you'll never run out of research projects.

>>8889980
You'll quickly run out of self-respect and replace it with frameworks of ambiguous terminologies you can use to defend your every philosophical assumption so that you never have to grow or change or heaven forbid subject yourself to falsifiability.

>>8889986
That's why I don't actually switch. I want to do things with actual applications.

>>8889882
All the soft "sciences" are naked ideological projects and should be combined under economics, in my opinion. Cognitive, abnormal, and developmental psychology could be placed under neuroscience. Anthropology is unique and should keep to itself and under which linguistics could be subsumed.

>>8889882
Science is "the study of"

That's it. Fuck you.

>>8889882

in any field, there are variables that cannot be controlled for

>>8889891
>confirmation bias
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives.


Wait..... That could be confirmation bias itself, how can you prove anything using the work of others unless you remain unbiased, which you only could be if you didnt know what you were going to prove.

Everyone in this thread needs to take a step back and imagine a universe in which there is more to understanding and life than quantitative analysis

>>8890181
no

>>8889988
Don't stick economists with those idiots please.

>>8889882

It isn't science and should not be considered as such

>>8890181
Stop trolling!

>>8889882
It isn't a science because I get triggered when a dumb liberal arts major is analyzing me.

>>8890181
And neither psychology nor sociology are able to study it.

>>8889882
>Something is hard to study.
>Therefore studying it can't be a science.
What?

>>8889891
On what studies do you base these unbiased conclusions of yours?

>>8890019
The subfields of anthro could easily be cannibalized by a number of other fields. But the reality is all these areas of study are distinct for a reason.

>>8890196
You're just as bad as them. You can't even reply to the right post.

>>8890181
I can imagine it, that doesn't make it true though. Even if you really want it to be true because you hold some beliefs based on faith and wishful thinking.

They aren't sciences. They aren't testable nor falsifiable (if you go by Popper's standard).

>>8889882
Psychology is not a science. It is gender studies for normies. We should abolish it.