Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 22:00:02 UTC No. 16176214

>>16176209
What psychology seeks to study can be scientifically studied.
However, a good number of psychologists are poor scientists; this allows junk science to gain wide acceptance.

There's a reason for the reproducibility crisis.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 22:06:46 UTC No. 16176228

>>16176214
>can be scientifically studied
can it effectively be scientifically studied tho?
well shit, when your hypotheses depend on a gazilion unknown unknowns can you even claim the field is effectively scientific or just noise collecting nonsenses?

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 22:08:32 UTC No. 16176232

>>16176209
You have asked this question several times before. The answer is still 'No'. Stop asking, faggot.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 23:08:28 UTC No. 16176318

>>16176228
go read some papers first then. because that's not what concerns psychology research.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 23:29:56 UTC No. 16176346

>>16176209
Yes. It is the scientific method and not the subject that lends legitimacy to science.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 23:48:24 UTC No. 16176368

>>16176209
>Is X a legitimate science?

I want to say "that depends on your definition of science. Whether 'science' is result or is it the process and work that derives that result" but I think in this case both cases the answer would be NO

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 00:14:26 UTC No. 16176406

Psych major here.
Psych is about 90% bullshit.
The remaining 10% has some pretty good stuff.

The problem is poor experiment design, poor use of statistics, poor reproducibility, poor definition of terms, and woke politics.

Solution is more rigor, better math, and clear definitions, and burn all the woke faggots.

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 01:14:04 UTC No. 16176456

>>16176209
Not since it got overrun with women

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 01:45:35 UTC No. 16176474

>>16176209
Science can mean many things to many people. the accuracy and instruments with which measurements are made, as well as the statistical methods used to analyse data vary by field, and are usually obtained with trial and error. You wouldn't say that math is unscientific, even though it obviously does not follow the conventional scientific method, similarly, the methods by which chiropractors have arrived at their methods are also "unscientific", but many people (including myself) can swear by a collection of them.
The traditional scientific methods is somewhat illusory, impractical and a very modern conception. Things are much more complex in practice. "Science", often reverts and changes its premises, even oscillating between them. Beliefs tend to be helf generationally, as opposed to constantly changing when new evidence is provided. The methods by which knowledge is obtained have varied greatly throughout history, and so has what we know to be knowledge.
Psychology can easily be included within the sciences, but the quality and rationality of the average psychologist (ideologically driven emotional woman or effeminate man), as well as their reliance on foundational work obtained through more philosophical means, might be the reason for dubious quality of their contemporary results.

Eos !!7Nk2/yfbs86 at Wed, 15 May 2024 02:23:51 UTC No. 16176516

>>16176209
The question you should be asking is "Are psychologists real scientists?" (to which the answer is no.)

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 16:09:31 UTC No. 16177141

I had a whole argument with OP in my head in which I won so OP as always confirmed gay and wrong.

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 20:09:46 UTC No. 16177387

>>16176346