4 ms·

I believe this is only partially true! We call it science because when we find methods that we all agree on, as a culture to use then it becomes scientific. F

I believe this is only partially true! We call it science because when we find methods that we all agree on, as a culture to use then it becomes scientific. For Instance psychology, in the freudean psychology the methology is still science even though he speaks of urges of "your mother" and interesting things like the "subconciousness". It has been met with great doubt over it's "initiation" but is now a widely acceptable practise. So what has changed? Well the field concentrated on scientific core value which (almost) boil down to: Find a methology, prove that it works and replicated it again.scientific quality criteria. I agree with op! Stimulating cells with electricity is not teaching them. Its assisted muscle reaction. In this case its really clear cut too: if I need to give the braincells electro schocks (the thing they operate on), If anything, I am remote controlling brain cells. The whole idea of perception is flawed in this experiment, you know, because there is no actual perceptor of the paddel to begin with. Sorry but as someone with a bachelor in psychology and 20 years of dev experience the starting poing of "I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works." is just condecending theory. This is literally what "scientific quality criteria" is based on.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Freudian psychoanalysis is absolutely not widely accepted. “Therapy” is a different thing altogether; essentially an American misinterpretation of the practice. And it’s popular because it’s profitable because it’s efficient. It legitimates various medical and pseudo-medical so-called expert institutions and displaces attention to the less desired byproducts of modern capitalism. Freud’s work, on the other hand, was extremely inefficient in comparison and rather served to expose and develop awareness of neurosis rather than to medicate.
- jhoelzel 5y ago
  i get what you are trying to say but its the old quantitative vs qualitative research discussion again and while I accept your opinion in the manner and the way you vaulue it, the reasoning is flawed from my perspective. Psychoanalysis is only the tip of the freudian journey and i was not trying to say that everything he did on a cocain run was perfect or even valid. What i was trying to say is that the scientific process for this has evolved and in reality what diffencietes science from pseudo science is methodology. Psychology is literally the method of the psyche (translated). Even this mythbusters says: the difference between science and screwing around is to write it all down ;)

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

Freudian psychoanalysis is absolutely not widely accepted. “Therapy” is a different thing altogether; essentially an American misinterpretation of the practice. And it’s popular because it’s profitable because it’s efficient. It legitimates various medical and pseudo-medical so-called expert institutions and displaces attention to the less desired byproducts of modern capitalism. Freud’s work, on the other hand, was extremely inefficient in comparison and rather served to expose and develop awareness of neurosis rather than to medicate.

jhoelzel 5y ago
i get what you are trying to say but its the old quantitative vs qualitative research discussion again and while I accept your opinion in the manner and the way you vaulue it, the reasoning is flawed from my perspective. Psychoanalysis is only the tip of the freudian journey and i was not trying to say that everything he did on a cocain run was perfect or even valid. What i was trying to say is that the scientific process for this has evolved and in reality what diffencietes science from pseudo science is methodology. Psychology is literally the method of the psyche (translated). Even this mythbusters says: the difference between science and screwing around is to write it all down ;)