3 ms·
Maybe I'm missing something. What is it specifically about this psychology research that somehow makes it incompatible with making quantifiable statements? I'm
by tinco 7y ago
Maybe I'm missing something. What is it specifically about this psychology research that somehow makes it incompatible with making quantifiable statements? I'm not saying some random person is doing some random maths which would randomly make it science. I'm saying these particular persons in this particular study are performing scientific research and making quantifiable statements through maths that seem to be trivially and intuitively applicable. How is this different from say particle physics? If anything applying maths to particle physics is more dangerous because it's so easy to repeat the experiment until you've got the result you want.
You have something specifically against psychology research, I haven't seen a single argument from you that could not be applied against any other scientific field. They applied a methodology that you didn't initially understand, and now you're refusing to understand it because you're committed to arguing against it. Weird thing is it's not even a controversial finding, just a confirmation of something everyone knows to be true.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago>> How is this different from say particle physics? It is different in the sense that particle physics quantifies concepts that are not correlated to how someone feels about them, or how someone answers questions in a questionnaire. And I don't see how I misunderstood the studies we're discussing. They handed people questionnaires asking them how they think or feel about things. I don't see how any concrete evidence about anything can be found in this way, other than how people fill questionnaires. But the claim is never "X people fill this questionnaire in this way". It's always along the lines of "X people are more agreeable" etc. This is misleading.