First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Is psychology a science? I don't think so.
12368 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 9/13/15

Whereas wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:

a claim by a single researcher should be taken with a grain of salt.


You posted the results of a single study, I posted the results of a single study - both are about the same thing: there's too many studies in scientific journals that aren't reproducible. Physics doesn't really have this problem, but psychology and medicine do.


"A team of 270 scientists tried reproducing 100 psychology and social science studies that had been published in three top peer-reviewed U.S. journals in 2008."
vs
1 research claiming that 90% of research is wrong.

though the claim that many of the poorly done research cannot be reproduced, that i agree with.
1580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / Shit Orb #3
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
I think it is, yes. Psychology does have to do with human interactions and thought, which aren't very exact at all, but you can still observe and research. The field also involves chemicals in the brain and what they cause, and one can't argue the study of the workings of the brain isn't a science.
Psychology and people who study it have helped me a lot over the years.
42240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
dead
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
It's a social science, but a science nonetheless. psychology/psychiatry can also have to do with people's neurological functions, in case people forget where mental illness comes from, and certain disorders can also be hereditary.
53387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
2341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/13/15

namealreadytaken wrote:


1. https://xkcd.com/263/ . on a serious note, math is the most rigorous science and is as rigorous as it can be.
2. there was a case in which one researcher claimed that vaccine could pose a health risk. the claim was later refuted, but many people refused to vaccine their kids, resulting in an increase in diseases thought to be eradicated. this is just one example though.
3. you don't need to be an expert to question the validity of supposedly scentific research. the pilar of any science is to always question everything. just because someone has a phd or a master at harvard, that doesn't mean that his research is necessarily valid - there's a chance for errors during the research, bias sampling, etc.


Did you know that I still dont care?

Also I did say science in general, sure mathematics is only one aspect, there are plenty of other areas in science that are flawed.
I said expert, key word is expert, I could claim a bunch of crap and link articles on the net too but that doesn't mean I'm an expert.

Try to keep up will ya?
70 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/15

namealreadytaken wrote:
"A team of 270 scientists tried reproducing 100 psychology and social science studies that had been published in three top peer-reviewed U.S. journals in 2008."
vs
1 research claiming that 90% of research is wrong.

though the claim that many of the poorly done research cannot be reproduced, that i agree with.


If you'd bothered to read, that estimate is based on the fact that of 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years (as judged by the science community's two standard measures) 41% of the 34 that were later retested have been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. Not 41% of run-of-the-mill studies, 41% of the most highly regarded ones.

The issue here is probably the 95% confidence requirement (it can't be as high as in physics because it's that much harder to do large medical trials). 5% of the findings in journals would be *expected* to be wrong based on that alone, but it turns out that the interesting findings - the ones that get published in journals - tend to fall in those 5% a lot more often than that.
61339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/15

namealreadytaken wrote:


Haruna-kai wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:

scientists already confirmed that the psychology research published in scientific journals are flawed.
(as per link posted in my previous post)


Sigh, definitely Sunday...

1. Science doesn't know everything and is flawed in itself.
2. I dont care if its flawed, it makes no difference to me.
3. My point was you dont become an expert by reading a few articles on the net and taking a few courses in it in school.


1. https://xkcd.com/263/ . on a serious note, math is the most rigorous science and is as rigorous as it can be.
2. there was a case in which one researcher claimed that vaccine could pose a health risk. the claim was later refuted, but many people refused to vaccine their kids, resulting in an increase in diseases thought to be eradicated. this is just one example though.
3. you don't need to be an expert to question the validity of supposedly scentific research. the pilar of any science is to always question everything. just because someone has a phd or a master at harvard, that doesn't mean that his research is necessarily valid - there's a chance for errors during the research, bias sampling, etc.


Believe it or not, there is little value in questioning everything. Analyzing and identifying the potential flaws and weaknesses in an experiment can be useful if your goal is to attempt to either support or disprove a particular conclusion, but unless you actually run your own experiment, all you can hope to be is a skeptic.

The reason one might value an authority's opinion on a subject is because he's likely been exposed to significant amounts of data that support his claims. I personally haven't read any peer reviewed journals, so I defer to the experts in the field who make their living doing that sort of thing. You are correct, though, that authorities on a subject can still be wrong, especially if they're presenting brand new findings.
58107 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15


The TL;DR version:

"I took a class in psychology and didn't understand it, so now I'm telling you not to believe in it."
Posted 9/13/15

Whereas wrote:

but it turns out that the interesting findings - the ones that get published in journals - tend to fall in those 5% a lot more often than that.


that's just incredibly sad. Same with UFO research... now i have no way of knowing if there's any evidence of alien life :(.
6367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15

Haruna-kai wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:


1. https://xkcd.com/263/ . on a serious note, math is the most rigorous science and is as rigorous as it can be.
2. there was a case in which one researcher claimed that vaccine could pose a health risk. the claim was later refuted, but many people refused to vaccine their kids, resulting in an increase in diseases thought to be eradicated. this is just one example though.
3. you don't need to be an expert to question the validity of supposedly scentific research. the pilar of any science is to always question everything. just because someone has a phd or a master at harvard, that doesn't mean that his research is necessarily valid - there's a chance for errors during the research, bias sampling, etc.


Did you know that I still dont care?

Also I did say science in general, sure mathematics is only one aspect, there are plenty of other areas in science that are flawed.
I said expert, key word is expert, I could claim a bunch of crap and link articles on the net too but that doesn't mean I'm an expert.

Try to keep up will ya?


Relying on experts is nothing but surrender, one should strive to know not on trusting conclusions of others but through understanding the facts and truth in their own right. Many many times of course its unavoidable. The Renaissance Man is not only dead, but actually existed and you have no choice but to rely on others. This still does not excuse the sort of blind faith based reasoning you are effectively proposing. One should never trust an expert only their arguments, one can maybe trust a consensus of experts a little but keep a healthy dose of skepticism as to the results. New data comes in all the time and changes the result even in comparatively hard sciences. When I was born there was no such thing as "dark energy" which is now believed to make up the lion's share of existence and we still know nothing about what it actually is, and this from astronomy/physics one of the hardest sciences around.

There are good reasons to distrust any psychological conclusion, its primary subjects cannot (ethically) be put through rigorously controlled studies that control for all variables. Studying the universe is much much easier, its a science with the most difficult challenge out there. Regular medicine is a challenge enough (otherwise drugs wouldn't have side effects and occaisonally get yanked) treating the most mysterious organ in the human body when even basic concepts (like say the nature of consciousness) are poorly understood is verging on the impossible.

Its no surprise psychology is full of crap... its a miracle that any of it isn't.

Course we have no recourse but to keep trying because people still rather obviously have problems.
70 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15

severticas wrote:
Same with UFO research... now i have no way of knowing if there's any evidence of alien life :(.


No need to scratch your head, to the best of science's knowledge there isn't (any evidence). This here was the broadest search performed to date:http://www.cnet.com/news/search-of-100000-galaxies-finds-no-sign-of-advanced-civilizations/

You should read up on the Fermi paradox... we really haven't found anything yet, although it's far from unthinkable that we will some day.

Posted 9/13/15

Whereas wrote:


severticas wrote:
Same with UFO research... now i have no way of knowing if there's any evidence of alien life :(.


No need to scratch your head, to the best of science's knowledge there isn't (any evidence). This here was the broadest search performed to date:http://www.cnet.com/news/search-of-100000-galaxies-finds-no-sign-of-advanced-civilizations/

You should read up on the Fermi paradox... we really haven't found anything yet, although it's far from unthinkable that we will some day.



Yeah i do know about it... i'd found it via electronic transmission with space.
6624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
Did a psychologist piss in the OP's cornflakes?

Psychology uses the scientific method. It's a science.
23264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Long Island
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15
Thank you for further stigmatizing mental illness and the study of them, and in effect making my job as a social worker that much harder. I don't think 2 years of undergraduate study qualifies you to discredit an entire field of study. At the very least volunteer in some type of human service agency, then come back and tell me psychology is bs.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.