First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Is psychology a science? I don't think so.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/14/15
It's a behavioral science. How "reliable" it is depends in part on what area of psychology are studying and the extent of research done in the field.

For example, if a very bright light is shown in my eye, I immediately close my eyes. What branch does this fall under? Psychology. The fact that animals can learn by using positive feedback (give the dog a command, if they perform it well, give them a treat; eventually they'll do the trick on command) is again something from psychology. Psychology has made some real progress in its own field, even if the progress is arguably confined to less interesting questions. Where psychology has made real progress is when its correlated different behaviors.

And yes, there's some areas of psychology that haven't made much progress to have anything resembling a central reliable theory. But maybe that's because it's still in its infancy. But alas, it's still considered a behavioral science.
26023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15
This whole thing is stupid and not worth my time. So as a result, I will waste my time on it. I better watch out--that might just justify arguments that humans aren't very intelligent compared to insects. I heard that the grasshopper outside decided not to rant on about something not worth his time--so I mean... crap.. I'm proving his points...

Anyway, for my own amusement, here is a quick summary / commentary to condense a long rant into.... a long numbered list! Woo!
Key Points of the OP:

1) I partially tried something a few years ago and dropped out because I was better than it.

2) I'm smart and don't believe everything I'm told.

3) Blah blah blah

4) Argument about intelligence that ignores lots of details of defining intelligence (you would've learned about that if you took a few more classes?)

5) One sided follow-up argument about people doing stupid things therefore they are stupid... relying on common idea that people don't have common sense to make point with some dramatic flair

6) We make up disorders because we try to improve our knowledge and classification--so since they change--it must naturally mean they are always 100% false.

7) (See quote). LOL. Not even worth writing anything.... you totally missed the point of developmental psychology. Also, look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_fable . You might find that idea interesting... or not


Another example of pseudoscience in psychology is developmental psychology. Developmental psychology makes the false assumption that the older a person is the more mature and intelligent they should be. But simple empirical observation demonstrates that age has little to do with intelligence. Some older people are incredibly dumb. On the other hand, some younger people are incredibly smart.


8) Some sort of conspiracy theory about how psychology is used to exploit the workers

9) Only computer science or computer fields are worth majoring in.

10) Psychology in nonsense that you should read about in your spare time rather than pay for

11) Apparently this was supposed to be a quick rant. My summary is absurdly long--and I skipped most of the details... but apparently this was a "whistleblower" rant to help you from being brainwashed. So to anybody that's 'listening' to the OP--please look up the definition of irony.

12) Further assurance that the OP knows best using his first "reference" by referring to Noam Chomsky saying the OP is correct with an interpreted/paraphrased quote

13) Psychology is fake and full of pseudoscience.



In summary, psychology contains copious amounts of pseudoscience. It is only partially a real science, but it contains enough pseudoscience in it, that many people are completely justified by saying that "it is largely a pseudoscience".

I don't need a PhD in psychology to understand psychology. I studied it in university for two years, and that's all the proof I need to prove that psychology is riddled with pseudoscience.



14) The OP concludes using the phrase: 'empirical evidence' which obviously means he's smart and knows what he is talking about.


So whatever. I wrote stuff. This was cathartic for me. I get stressed in my job that requires me to use actual knowledge, so it's nice to blow off some steam writing random crap in response to something that somebody wrote on the Internet. Maybe someone should study that?

Also, liking the idea that the OP is a troll just looking to start a flame war. That'd be fun too. Unfortunately probably not true...

P.S. >> Dunning–Kruger effect [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ]
8389 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
Yes. If I ever go insane for whatever reason I'll rely on it.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 9/13/15

Whereas wrote:


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.


It wouldn't be 5% though. That'd be true if the probability a result being positive and published was equal to 1 minus the probability of a result being negative and published; but it isn't. The reality is positive results are published a lot more than negative results, so studies that had a (false) positive and weren't replicated could have been interesting. Building on that, replicating studies is somehow not considered publish-worthy, which is why so many false positives can lurk in the first place. Toss in a "publish or perish" climate, and you're bound to have false positives go unchecked.
18 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 9/14/15
It's great that you attack research - but thats also what psychology as a science does to itself.

Maybe you have a misrepresentation that the whole of psychology holds one robotic view, because that's what undergrad is kinda like lol.

I'm thinking you went to a college with a real shitty psych course that didn't tell you that there is more to what is just represented in lectures. My classes were filled with discussions that encouraged us to challenge research and ideas in order to facilitate critical thought, as part of the psychology discipline.
4375 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 9/14/15
Psychology is pseudoscience only because we don't have a good enough picture of the puzzle yet. I recently stumbled onto a documentary on youtube about the connection between psychiatry and drug companies. Essentially trying to say that the discipline of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs is only a grand marketing scheme designed to fool people into being controlled. I made it through one of the three hours.

In the very beginning of the video, they had an actor place x rays of a broken leg or a brain tumor up then a picture of a brain with a question mark on it. "This is an x ray of a broken leg. And this is a picture of ADHD." Or bipolar-disorder or what have you. It was a naked attempt to call the field into question simply because we don't know what causes this stuff. At the moment, we're playing with the physiology of the brain thinking it has to do with chemical imbalances.

Healthcare was a pseudoscience at one point in history. We had no idea what caused diseases. Louis Pasteur was a kind of laughingstock when he started saying that germs existed. Hundreds of years ago the best reasoning was that our humors were unbalanced and we needed to bleed patients to get them to feel better. Science is constantly evolving and reevaluating. Pluto isn't classified as a planet anymore. This isn't the scientific community being dicks to everyone who learned that it was, no more than Doctors are being assholes when they realize their treatment for the last two decades is actually killing people instead of curing them. AT the time all of the research said that it was good so they did it. Then further research said, "Oh shit, we were wrong. Stop."

Having had two or however many years of college courses has given you the ability to see that we don't know. Until we actually do know, we have to half ass everything with the best of intentions. Which is not the best situation to be in. It basically means we're going to be potentially screwing up everyone's lives until we get it right. We're using our best educated guess to try and fix things.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.