3 ms·

I feel like the entire field of psychology is no more valid than homeopathy. Just people coming up with theories why something happens, patting themselves on th

I feel like the entire field of psychology is no more valid than homeopathy. Just people coming up with theories why something happens, patting themselves on the back, then the whole thing gets inevitably disproven few years/decades later. And it doesn't have the hallmarks of actual science, where people go ok, our theory was slightly wrong, let's refine it - no, it turns out the entire approaches and assumptions are completely wrong, from top to bottom. How many generations of psychologists have been trained on theories of Freud but now if you suggested any of what he said as true you'd be laughed out of the room?

mschuster91 4y ago
> How many generations of psychologists have been trained on theories of Freud but now if you suggested any of what he said as true you'd be laughed out of the room? That's called science: to act on data and knowledge you have, and to refine your theories with more / better data and knowledge you gain over time. And that's true over all fields of science - no one got it right or complete on the first try, we are building on literally thousands of years of experimentation and thinking. This sort of revisionist/hindsight thinking is, coincidentally, fueling a lot of the antivaxxer/covid denier bullshit: Yes, now we know that decent immunity needs three to four doses of a COVID vaccine, and that it is likely that we need regular refreshers to keep up with evolving variants. But it remains a valid statement that, back two years ago, the available data suggested that one (AZ) or two (BT/Moderna) doses were enough to provide immunity. And people whining that "they should have known better" are charlatans at best and destructive discourse participants at worst, because they do not understand the basic definition of how science works. For example: it took until the 1980s until it was formally recognized that washing hands is important in healthcare [1]. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashing-once-controversial-medical-advice https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashi...
- pastage 4y ago
  First of all that NG article and links in it are thought provoking, and second I disagree with the details of your facts on many levels. What is not explicitly said in that article though is that using science for political gain goes both ways. It is too easy to categorize every idea as antivaxxer just because it fits your narrative. I say this as a theoretical hardliner during covid that had to debate against lots of antivax people. There were many bad arguments used against antivaxxers.
- haberman 4y ago
  The CDC released only a small fraction of the data it collected about COVID, because it felt the data could be misinterpreted. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.htm... It also declined to gather other kinds of data altogether (like breakthrough infections). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/health/cdc-coronavirus-infections-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/health/cdc-coronavirus-in... Is this how science should work?
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Is this how science should work? Under normal circumstances, definitely not. The problem is, the last time scientific data was misinterpreted on that scale and with the ruthlessness that could be seen during COVID was probably back when the Catholic Church fought against heliocentrism. Scientific discourse requires good faith and a common shared sense of truth, something that COVID deniers and antivaxxers lack to this very date.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      How would scientists get and publish the data if they don't know it exists? Or, if they intellectually think it probably exists, that's different from actually seeing that it exists. I think the CDC is totally wrong, what they did/are doing has a massive impact on the quality of "the science" (as in normal science where the scientists can actually talk about what they did).
throwaway4aday 4y ago
Who would have thought that Mathematics, of all disciplines, would put them out of business in the end?

mschuster91 4y ago

> How many generations of psychologists have been trained on theories of Freud but now if you suggested any of what he said as true you'd be laughed out of the room? That's called science: to act on data and knowledge you have, and to refine your theories with more / better data and knowledge you gain over time. And that's true over all fields of science - no one got it right or complete on the first try, we are building on literally thousands of years of experimentation and thinking. This sort of revisionist/hindsight thinking is, coincidentally, fueling a lot of the antivaxxer/covid denier bullshit: Yes, now we know that decent immunity needs three to four doses of a COVID vaccine, and that it is likely that we need regular refreshers to keep up with evolving variants. But it remains a valid statement that, back two years ago, the available data suggested that one (AZ) or two (BT/Moderna) doses were enough to provide immunity. And people whining that "they should have known better" are charlatans at best and destructive discourse participants at worst, because they do not understand the basic definition of how science works. For example: it took until the 1980s until it was formally recognized that washing hands is important in healthcare [1]. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashing-once-controversial-medical-advice https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashi...

pastage 4y ago
First of all that NG article and links in it are thought provoking, and second I disagree with the details of your facts on many levels. What is not explicitly said in that article though is that using science for political gain goes both ways. It is too easy to categorize every idea as antivaxxer just because it fits your narrative. I say this as a theoretical hardliner during covid that had to debate against lots of antivax people. There were many bad arguments used against antivaxxers.
haberman 4y ago
The CDC released only a small fraction of the data it collected about COVID, because it felt the data could be misinterpreted. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.htm... It also declined to gather other kinds of data altogether (like breakthrough infections). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/health/cdc-coronavirus-infections-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/health/cdc-coronavirus-in... Is this how science should work?
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Is this how science should work? Under normal circumstances, definitely not. The problem is, the last time scientific data was misinterpreted on that scale and with the ruthlessness that could be seen during COVID was probably back when the Catholic Church fought against heliocentrism. Scientific discourse requires good faith and a common shared sense of truth, something that COVID deniers and antivaxxers lack to this very date.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    How would scientists get and publish the data if they don't know it exists? Or, if they intellectually think it probably exists, that's different from actually seeing that it exists. I think the CDC is totally wrong, what they did/are doing has a massive impact on the quality of "the science" (as in normal science where the scientists can actually talk about what they did).

throwaway4aday 4y ago

Who would have thought that Mathematics, of all disciplines, would put them out of business in the end?