So I was looking at my university's psychology course materials today and I realised that null hypothesis testing is abused to the point of meaninglessness by social scientists and that's one of the reasons why psychologists aren't real scientists.
PROVE ME WRONG
>>33
Because biologists are legally able to disect live frogs and psychologists aren't able to disect live humans?
Firstly, good psychologists are well aware that hypothesis testing provides nothing but the probability of the results occurring by chance, and that it has little to do with truth value. Secondly, based on your vague description, you came to your conclusion based on really weak observations and reading of the actual material. Way to show you are objective and able to weigh evidence. Thirdly, the actual rigor that goes into theories for cognitive psychology, behaviorism, even social psychology is far more complex than what is presented in an introductory class. Indeed, any good intro class will go over the action potential in great detail to hammer home the idea of monism. However, a complete understanding of brain structure, neurochemistry and electrophysiology is not necessary to develop fairly good models for social, behavioral, and cognitive processes. It doesn't hurt, but it is not the end all.
To lump clinical psychology and psychiatry together, and yet not differentiate clinical psychology from experimental psychology is ignorant.
Ultimately, experimental psychology, although not having as precise an approximation of evidence, as say physics, it does use the scientific method and ensures that the findings are transparent and open to the public.
>> an precise approximation of evidence
Rather, evidence that is a precise approximation of a given phenomenon.
>>35
These days zoologists rarely get to disect animals larger than frogs for political and moral reasons even if they are professionally trained about using scalpels.
But the point is, should sensibility be used as a measuring stick? What about mathematics? Can you feel numbers? You say you can count apples with your fingers? What about imaginary numbers?
In fact, deniers are the ones who does the unscientific thing in this thread. What is the definition of science? Without it, you can't deny it.
>>38
On mathematics: The more abstract something is, the more absolute it becomes. Math is, in its purest form, just uncorrupted rules and procedures. It shouldn't be considered a science as it is not based on theory but an absolute system.
>It shouldn't be considered a science as it is not based on theory but an absolute system.
So what is your definition of science?
By the way, have you heard of the incporeteness theorem?
incompleteness theorem
>>41
Study of things that do not have a formal and predictable system.
In mathematics, if you plug in the same sets of numbers into equations, you will always get the same answers. Everything, the rules, the system and the symbols, is useable from the start. The only thing left to discover in math are rules and shortcuts.
With the sciences, there are many different factors (some unknown) which will influence whether or not an experiment will turn out with the expected results.
>>43
So that definition doesn't exclude psychology as a fake science, does it?
>>44
I see what you did there. It's as fake of a science as zoology (as noted before by other Anons). Note that I said "study" which implies both observation and/or experimentation.
Psychology is a science. It's just that there is more egotistical people in physical sciences who think psychology and similar fields are not a science because they're not as stable as physical sciences (where the next major theory that screws up the sytem appears once every several decades). The concepts of the physical sciences change very slowly in comparison to those of psychology, where changes to the entire system happen in very short periods. Also, physical sciences don't have to bother with objects with a will of their own, who can affect experiments and observations if they know about them.
Here's a question: If atoms started thinking for themselves, would chemistry still be a science?
> If atoms started thinking for themselves, would chemistry still be a science?
How do you know they don't?
To scientists in this thread, just take a class on Philosphy of Science. Every decent university offers it.
Don't dismiss it because it's not a "science" class.
I think they are real scientists, trying to use the scientific method of testing hypotheses in order to arrive at a bit of knowledge. But consider the beast they are trying to tackle... its huge! The human mind... what could be more complex, more shrouded in mystery. Cant say I know much about it, I'm a physics person myself. It must be hard for them to get results, results that are useful to us as people.
There is the distinction made between hard science (physics/chem/etc) and others (psychology/sociology). They are not entirely the same
Former Psych-major here.
As of right now, I am a biochem major. I decided Psychology was not for. I do not think that psychology is fake, to me psychology is a TRUE science.
HOWEVER, society has destroyed psychology. Suddenly ever loser and his friend thinks they know about psychology and this really pissed me off. It makes me feel like..well.. worthless. It is similar to effect that doctors go through when their patients or relatives of the patients suddenly think they know more than the physician. That's just not me.
People don't fucking understand the science of Psychology and think that Psychology is just common sense. It is, but that's not all. You have to study the human condition, not every follows the same behavior you do. Your "common sense" is not common sense for others. In order to be a true psychologist you must study all these cases and derive a common and unifying conclusion to understand what the human being really is. Just because you experience life a certain way, it does not mean that your experience can be used on others.
I was totally into psychology before it sold out too, >50.
Physics major here too. I think, People in Psychology, without a doubt, try to follow the scientical method, but does it make Psychology a true Science? I reserve my doubt.
Oh man I forgot I started this thread. Anyway I decided experimental psychology is real but the more philosophical stuff and uncontrolled observational studies are bullshit.
Apart from Proust. That guy knew his shit. Guess he wasnt a psychologist though :/
Notice how only americans and scientologists have such idiotic views.
OMG RACISMS
>55
>Notice how only americans and scientologists have such idiotic views.
>56
>OMG RACISMS
It's not racist when it's a FACT. Three Words:
George Wanker Bush
>>49
Wow that sounds dumb, and coming from someone supposedly in psychology... I don't know what to think of you.
So you quit doing something because others that are unable to do it correctly also do it. Then you justified this nonsense with "this is just me". If you really were a psychology major, you'd know that who we are changes everyday with everything. You could say that everything surrounding us and everything we conceive, recall, compute, et cetera is affecting us. (Is this a false dichotomy or not? in the abstract sense of the words it seems not)
If it were really you, you should had attempted to change what prevents you from doing your job, which doesn't necessarily have to do anything with your job, it's just that via your job it was revealed. Instead of this, you chose to change a job/major.
>>57
so which one are you? a scientologist?
>>58
I think what bob was getting at is that psychology in the last 100 years or so has lost its value due to various sub fields of the study of the human brain being the more prominent yet being unable to really accomplish anything.
He left the field (in his words) because what we consider psychology today is a course which was developed by someone who likely squeeked through their doctorates program, decided major psychology texts were useless and dumbed it down, branched it out, and made the entire thing retarded to the point of only learning conditions and what chemicals affect them.
However...
>If it were really you, you should had attempted to change what prevents you from doing your job, which doesn't necessarily have to do anything with your job, it's just that via your job it was revealed. Instead of this, you chose to change a job/major.
I feel you are flawed in telling this person what he should do with his views. He felt that the entire coursework and topics to focus upon missed most of the point, not so much that people with less intelligence than is imaginable was going through, but that they had utterly slaughtered what is a majr and much needed field of science. In the interest of challenging himself, he chose something more suited to his talents and likely to expand his skill range well beyond what psych could have offered him.
Furthermore, I believe your reasoning to be flawed when you use it as justification for someone making a choice that they feel is reasonable and efficient for them.
Finally, I am going to make a very very left field connection because it reminds me of it in an abstract manner:
This is like a christian telling an athiest to blindly believe in god without providing anything which could be interpreted as a way of proving god exists.
For the record, I am no scientologist and strongly believe in and support psychology. Sometimes people need to understand scientology was written by a college drop out who was discharged from the Navy under other than honorable circumstances (he was forced to resign his commision after unlawful exercises and gross waste of supplies during a time of war, which you can be shot for by the way) who lived in china briefly as a kid, was shown to be highly racist, had 2 wifes at once, both of which were illegal marriages, wrote science fiction novels, and had no experiance whatsoever in the field of psychology, no certification, no formal education whatsoever, yet believed he knew more about the human brain that experts who devoted their lives to the study of the brain, who then went out and started a cult which then showed its own paranoia by assuming there to be a worldwide conspiracy against scientology, who then later died in his exiled home by a drug overdose.
Yep, sounds like scientology DEFINATLY has a better grasp on the human brain than frueid ever did..
....right.
tl;dr:
Do not pass judgement on other peoples professional choices and stay the hell away from crazed cults led by science fiction writers.
Regarding imaginary numbers, I suggest you read some of Karl Gauss' papers, specifically his proof on the fundamental theorem of algebra. If you read that and understand what he's saying, read some papers from his student and protege, Bernhard Riemann, including the need for real geometric and mathematical physics equivalents for work in mathematics.
Some things that need to be properly examined before you can undertake a dialectic on this topic, are studying and understanding a few things:
1.) Epistomology - What is knowledge, what is knowing, how do we know things, how do we know what we know, etc. Read Plato to get a thorough grounding in this, specifically 'Theatetus' and 'The Sophist'.
2.) Scientific Method, rules and procedures to be followed when conducting 'scientific studies,' the differences between hypothesis & theory are, what a null hypothesis is, statistical inference & significance and how they are misused.
3.) Formal definition of science, what criterion any scientific field must meet in order to be truthfully defined as a 'science.'
I saw some important points above that you have to distinguish between various sub-fields of psychology, as many use drastically different approaches. Though I won't do much of this in my post because of the nature of this forum, it's important to distinguish what sub fields of psychology you mean when you say "psychology," or whether you mean the field as a whole.
I'll go over some of the more relevant points on why psychology isn't a science, and how you can reason why this is so, in a generalized fashion. I can't go over everything, nor can I be exhaustive in my post. I can only give a long summary of the reasons why, and give some things to explore on your own. There is a substantial amount of research to validate the conclusion that psychology is not a science, and none that suggests it is a science, overall.
There are many fields of Psychology that strive toward scientific rigor, and conducting scientific studies and demanding experimental evidence. Bravo, and they are closer to legitimate sciences for it.
But ultimately, each field of psychology fails on a few, and more frequently multiple requirements for the formal definition of a science. Some reasons among others for this is a lack of falsifiability, which is more importantly rooted in a lack of concrete core theories of each sub-field.
This is more true in some subfields than others (I'm looking at you, psychotherapy and psychiatry), but for any field of study to be considered a science, it must have, among many other things, a core set of theories to begin with, and they must be falsifiable.
Psychology in general tends to fall flat on its face on this first point, since it not only lacks well defined theories (not hypothesis or assumptions) defining the base of all study, it lacks falsifiability. One way it lacks falsifiability, is if it cannot be tested for ethical reasons.
Since there are strong ethical taboos against human experimentation, behavioral case studies (that are often decades old, to boot) and animal behavioral studies are substituted instead. This in itself more or less invalidates the claim to science in sub-fields where this is practiced, for in the cases where testing isn't impossible, inductive logic based often based upon statistical inference must be used instead.
continued:
There are some sub-fields, such neuropsychology and others that focus their studies on things so specific that they aren't truthfully studying behavior or mental processes anymore, but biochemistry and physiology for the most part, and making inferences on how these biochemical and physiological processes influence mental processes and behavior of individuals. I.E., they aren't talking about 'psychology' anymore, for the most part.
Null Hypothesis is another point: Hypothetical assertions are assumed to be false, unless there is sufficient experimental data to support the assertions. If that condition is satisfied, then further testing and refinement can ensue. Do you make hypothesis honestly asking questions about human behavior that can be tested, including a prediction of human behavior, and a prediction/ancillary addressing the possibility the proposed hypothesis is false? And if you do that, instead posing testable hypothesis instead of making culturally biased assumptions of how human behavior is, do you actually honor the null hypothesis?
In clinical practice/therapies, this is one of the most common offenses. Treatment results and studies often shows a therapy to either be ineffective or otherwise produce results other than is expected (as per a hypothesis). Instead of re-hypothesizing, or starting new studies for alternate therapies for an 'abnormal condition', many if not most therapists ignore the results and treat their patients however they want. This isn't anything remotely related to science. Such deplorable, baseless practices as labotomies have been practiced in the past due to laxness of experimental setup, and refusal to honor null hypotheses. This amounts to proposing models of behavior and mental process, and treatments, and the basis of abnormal behavior itself, off of belief instead of verification.
Finally:
Instead of scientific research being done, to create the basis of clinical therapy, the converse has most frequently been done, "experts" create new therapies in their practices, mental health facilities, et al, based upon their own assumptions and biases and then write articles on the matter to then be tested by others in the sub-fields of psychology. Anyone else see a logical falacy in this? It's easy to "confirm" such fait accompli studies when they are introduced to the community as valid, if not assumed true... and the same procedures and set of environmental conditions used to test said therapies are followed and produce similar or the same results. The study being done after the fact to "verify" the clinical practice could be called a scientific study, but the basis of the study is anything but. Many fields of psychology can legitimately claim to conduct and base their practices on scientific studies, but that says nothing on the basis of these scientific studies. Scientific studies alone do not constitute a science.
If there aren't clear core theories that form the basis of the field and sub-disciplines, scientific studies aren't being properly conducted and null hypothesis being honored, it then is impossible for the field itself to change and evolve based upon future research.
That is, even if you did scientifically sound research, it's potential to change the field overall is low to nil, since all the prior issues and standards of practice by those in the field must first be addressed, and revolutionized. It's important to note that the scientific studies must be based off of a sound scientific inquiry and method to start with. Otherwise, you're stuck using inductive logic, which does not necessarily require each prior statement or assertion to prove successive statements true. That is, you don't have to procedurally prove each assertion true to make further assertions based on prior assertions. Karl Popper proposed that falsifiability is a solution to problems of inductive logic.
An example is, you observe a swan that is white. You then propose that all swans are white. You have not proven that every observable swan is white, and possibly never could. You simply conjecture that due your singular observation, all possible observations in the same set will yield similar results. This kind of faulty logic is what will make you fail your chemistry and physics lab courses, but are done on a daily basis in most sub fields of psychology.
Other offenses are making assumptions and basing research on statistically insignificant samples, basing global hypotheses on local samples (i.e., study of personality and abnormal behavior is highly dependent on what culture, time period, and region the sample is taken from, and research on these subjects are commonly based on a sample of people taken from only one country, only one cultural background, etc.), and so on.
There are many areas of psychological study that are very useful, and help improve our understanding of how humans behave, just as there are many that do not. I also don't use the fact that psychology does not meet the formal definition of a science and "is not a science" to then invalidate all psychology research and practice, or claim that is isn't useful or meaningful work. It just isn't a science.
That also isn't to say that the same fallacies don't occur in the "hard sciences," because they very much do. There's a great deal of "bad science" one could point out being practiced in any sub field of science. However, it is much easier (and possible to boot) to find these bad practices and stamp them out given the systematization and internal self consistency of the sciences.
This reminds me of Thomas Kunt. So, Psychology is a multiparadigmatic science, it has as many approaches as people who study it.
Btw, science is not about getting to the truth of the truth (leave that to the mathematics). That's imposible! Science studys the world, the reality, the present, but all this stuffs are eventually changing, they are not sTatic. So, what may be true now, it may not be true tomorrow.
I just don't get why, of all of the so-called social sciences, psychology becomes everyone's easy target. Is it because of the yuppies blindly taking psychology classes at your university?
To me, the biggest wanna-be right now is economics. There is a Nobel prize for it (and for Peace and Literature, which everyone knows are jokes). Institutions such as MIT have picked up economics while largely disregarding other social sciences.
So, discuss economics.
> I just don't get why, of all of the so-called social sciences, psychology becomes everyone's easy target.
psychology is the only one that anyone pretends is a real science.
>>48
I took a Philosophy of Science course recently. It took about thirteen weeks to say, essentially, that there is no firm defining trait of "sciences". Rather, various fields of inquiry are "scientific" to varying degrees, and being called a "science" simply requires that a field of inquiry be "scientific" to a sufficient degree. Naturally, different people consider different degrees to be sufficient...
>>67
It occurs to me that I probably ought to outline those criteria...
According to the course text Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher, these criteria are independent testability, unification, and fecundity, and he uses Newtonian Mechanics as an example of a highly scientific field of inquiry.
Independent Testability requires that any auxiliary hypothesis introduced to rescue a core hypothesis from refutation must be testable in some experiment other than the one that forced its introduction. In the case of Newtonian Celestial Mechanics, astronomers noticed that the orbit of the planet Uranus didn't fit Newton's equations unless they assumed that another, more remote planet with a particular mass and orbit also existed. This auxiliary hypothesis was tested independently of Newton's theory by looking through telescopes at where the undiscovered planet was expected to be, and that's how Neptune was discovered. (This avoids misapplication of Popper's falsifiability criterion and ensures proper use of auxiliary hypotheses.)
Unification requires that a small, core set of problem-solving systems exist that can be applied to solve a wide range of related problems. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, can solve any question about motion by finding the forces acting on the system, use those forces and the laws of dynamics to construct the equations of motion, and solve those equations. (The professor also recommended, as a quick-and-dirty test for unity, finding a set of textbooks for a field of study and weighing them. Heavier libraries describe less unified theories.)
Fecundity results when a theory suggests further avenues of investigation. Newton's Principia, for instance, proposed the application of similar strategies to other types of scientific problems, based on the supposition that they could be reduced to problems of motion. Attempts were made in physical subdisciplines including thermodynamics, chemistry, optics, electricity, and magnetism. Some worked; others didn't.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with psychology to determine whether it's "scientific enough" to be considered a science. However, if it isn't, I suspect it still could be some day. After all, modern psychology is a relatively young field of study.
The only reason you slag psychiatry - which by the way does NOT LACK RIGOUR!?! - is probably because you are a failed medic/wannabe psychiatrist or you failed to get into medical school or some other related chip on your shoulder
Physical sciences scoff psychology saying it not a science.
The only people that really say psychology is a science are psychologists themselves.
People who say that psychology is a fake science are generally people who 1) have never done psychological research or understand it, or 2) don't like the diagnosis they've been given.
IRL I've ran into people claiming that psychology isn't a science. Every time I've asked them about it they in fact knew nothing about psychology. I can only assume this is true of people bickering about it in this thread. Psychology is one of those things that has a lot of "mythology" surrounding it so most people dont really know much about it (but it seems like everyone has something to say about it).
Go read a book about something in psychology and reconsider your opinion. Hell I got interested in psychology after reading about it in some of richard dawkin's books (The Selfish Gene, namely). Look up the evolutionary basis behind human morality. It's actually very interesting stuff.
>don't like the diagnosis they've been given.
A good 90% of psychology has nothing to do with mental disorders. Sadly this is the only thing most people associated with it.
>To me, the biggest wanna-be right now is economics. There is a Nobel prize for it
Economics doesn't have a Nobel prize. That's just the prize given to those who don't stand a chance at winning the Mathematics award.
I studied psychology. Because it's a young science you're gonna encounter lots of eclectic information that together ought to enhance your view of the human psyche. The process of psychological research itself is very disappointing though, disappointing enough that I feel embarrassed about my field. Psychological studies have a tiny signal to noise ratio: the vast majority of studies published in psychological journals are utter crap. Methodological carelessness, bad constructs, fake references,... One study showed that half of studies were actually completely worthless. 43% were not completely worthless, but still had enough flaws to make 'em unfit for publishing. 7% was worth publishing. (A psychologist can only hope this study is valid for meta-studies as well, therefore including itself in its domaine, and therefore partially invalidation its own conclusion based upon its own conclusion.)
That 7% contains biased research: a physicist does not enter the field because he has personal quibbles with gravity. But a social scientist diagnosed with schizophrenia might just start a personal quest against his diagnosis. There are so many levels on which you can influence and skew your research, it's foolish to believe controversial topics surrounded with lots of different agenda's get threated objectively.
So assuming social researchers are competent, sane and honest, there's still some basic limitations concerning psychological research. There's such a heavy reliance on statistics that many studies have to be repeated lots of times before one can eliminate chance entirely, and can reach meaningful conclusions. Just think of questionnaires, and how much effort you usually put into accurately completing them, and you should get an idea how such measurement can be problematic.
And even IF there's a meaningful conclusion reached by sufficient research by competent, sane and honest social scientists, IT'S USUALLY A CONFIRMATION OF COMMON SENSE.
Even though I would very much like to justify my study as to not having spent my college years in vain, I just cannot reach such conclusion based upon what I've seen and what I've learned.
What do you mean by "the Mathematics award"?
Psych is certainly a real science that is being attempted by fake scientists. A psychologist knows nothing about biology (they think they do because they took that class one time...). Everything we are is a function of our biology and that includes our behavior. That behavior is madadted in the brain which is controlled by electrochemical signals. A psychologist does not have the background to understand neurology. Neuropsychology is legitimate because real scientists are evaluating behavior based off biological principles.
To OP: is this a kind of IQ test? From basic logic point of view, your statement does noet even make sense. You bring no evidence. There's nothing in it supporting your obvious assumption that you're right.
銃とかに反応する、生物を使った呪いがあるんだけど
その関係で、ＴＶゲームの銃声に反応した人が電力関係に呪いをかけたらしい
日本のカルト宗教が電気を供養しようとしたり
頭の悪い行動がかなり増えてるw
本当に、日本大丈夫か？
The problem I have had with psychologists is that if you try to present evidence that another doctor has taken your blood, done DNA analysis, and concluded that you have say an intersexed DNA which is the cause of your "autism" (learningdisabilities+speaking irregulaties) .. the psychologists simply responds "people are born male or female" and dismisses the notion of biological cause->effect. That is what they are taught in school. Psychologists are NOT scientists in the slightest.
>>80
What is "intersexed DNA"? DNA does not have a sex. It's a macromolecule.
Are you referring to a chromosomal abnormality such as Klinefelter's syndrome?
>>72
Like meteorology and weather forecasts.
Some of Japanese abuse psychology.
It`s "group stalking"(集団ストーカー)
Japanese government permit terrorism！
Japan is famous for sloppy management of electromagnetic wave.
Japanese society Has become serious thing behind the scenes.
Electromagnetic wave is secret globally.
But Japan can`t take a cooperative attitude In the field of electromagnetic wave use.
Because some of Japanese capitalists abusing it that secret.
They slander Japan and Japanese people and other country(America and others), and attack and threaten civilian,suggest that murder,Threaten to kill,using electromagnetic wave all of them.
They are antisocial terrorists with state power.
But they feel at ease.
Cause Japanese government permit them to do terrorism！
I know that they are so crazy. Because I have spent with them every day by policy.
They talk to my brain directly with communication all day and all year around！
They say
「Drop dead!」「I kxxl you」
「Kxxl Amexxcan army」
「Kxxl policemen」
「Kxxl child by running over」
「This is retaliation of Japan」
「I`m dissatisfied.Cause you are America」「Hey white brother」
「Are you hate white? If you say ”I hate white”,I'll forgive」
「I kxxl Shi○zou Abe」「This is Jewish！」
「I am seibu!」「Apologize to seibu」
「Seibu`s tsutsumi」「Seibu will kill」
「Seibu`s oldman is doing」
「Seibu`s playground」「Seibu is not end, but it’s all over for me.」
「We don`t have to take responsibility」
and the others・・・
They tell terrible things to me using some name of authority.
【How to abuse electromagnetic wave for the attack.】
①One person threaten to the target, And he infringe on their privacy for 24 hours
by electromagnetic wave.
②Another person use pneumatron wave to the target.
③And They say 「This is America」「Kxxl Amexxcan army」 .
They repeats it with communication many times ..
Some of Japanese authorities are doing all of them for many years by remote control.
I think it is terrible using name of America with electromagnetic wave by them.Perhaps they want to Pass the buck to America.
Japanese government should have more awareness of crisis against complicity with electromagnetic wave.
It seems like they are dissatisfied with America.
But I think that Japan needs strict supervision for the maintenance of peace by advanced country.
In Japan, it is terrible human rights violations with electromagnetic wave by authorities.
It is doing confidentially in many people for one person. I want American people to know it.
We should keep a lookout for human rights violations.
This is Japan`s reality .
Please tell people all over the world.Please help Japanese people and avatar.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ichirou Matsushita
※These are Imagination.Please don`t believe.
(I am afraid of Japanese government and Japanese law. I never know what the government will do next.Please be watchful).