4 ms·

Psychology and social studies, antropology (and economy and whats called climate sciences) really shouldn't be called sciences. It's one of the rare cases IMO w

Psychology and social studies, antropology (and economy and whats called climate sciences) really shouldn't be called sciences. It's one of the rare cases IMO where the word really obstructs the core meaning of the subject matter. They should be considered temporary interpretations of statistical data or in short meta statistics cause that's really what they are. Much damage is being done by treating these fields as science and the article is only mentioning a few of those problems.

dhimes 8y ago
I think of it on a per-hypothesis or per-theory basis: If a hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific. If not, then it's not.
- everdrive 8y ago
  No major disagreement with this general point of view. But, do you think that much of psychology has a falsifiability problem?
danans 8y ago
> They should be considered temporary interpretations of statistical data or in short meta statistics cause that's really what they are. This is what a lot of experimental sciences are, even physical ones, when the systems being studied are complex. There are very few areas of scientific study anymore that offer convenient, deterministic results. That fruit was picked a long time ago. Even at the cutting end of physics, researchers have to infer from statistical results. The difference is only that some of these fields have more reproducible results than others, often because they are studying less complex phenomena, whose causal factors and mechanisms can be more directly observed. Psychology is at one end of that spectrum, because it is studying the output of the mind, a biological information system whose mechanisms are among the most complex and obscure that people have ever studied.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I understand that and I agree with how you think about it but the problem is that it creates a very unhealthy public debate because one end of the spectrum gets confused with the other.
ThomPete 8y ago
Why was this flagged?

dhimes 8y ago

I think of it on a per-hypothesis or per-theory basis: If a hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific. If not, then it's not.

everdrive 8y ago
No major disagreement with this general point of view. But, do you think that much of psychology has a falsifiability problem?

danans 8y ago

> They should be considered temporary interpretations of statistical data or in short meta statistics cause that's really what they are. This is what a lot of experimental sciences are, even physical ones, when the systems being studied are complex. There are very few areas of scientific study anymore that offer convenient, deterministic results. That fruit was picked a long time ago. Even at the cutting end of physics, researchers have to infer from statistical results. The difference is only that some of these fields have more reproducible results than others, often because they are studying less complex phenomena, whose causal factors and mechanisms can be more directly observed. Psychology is at one end of that spectrum, because it is studying the output of the mind, a biological information system whose mechanisms are among the most complex and obscure that people have ever studied.

ThomPete 8y ago
I understand that and I agree with how you think about it but the problem is that it creates a very unhealthy public debate because one end of the spectrum gets confused with the other.

ThomPete 8y ago

Why was this flagged?