4 ms·
It might seem as if the modern STEM crowd discounts psychology as nearly pseudoscience, perhaps only necessary as a workaround until they figure out how exactly
by strogonoff 3y ago
It might seem as if the modern STEM crowd discounts psychology as nearly pseudoscience, perhaps only necessary as a workaround until they figure out how exactly those atoms cause our consciousness (at best; those who demote consciousness to the level of illusion would probably not grant even that).
They forget that their “hard” natural sciences offer no proof of consciousness being caused by neurons and atoms, or them being somehow more “objectively real” than consciousness; indeed, this is not even a question physics et al. would have in their scope.
If you think about it, your mind is the only thing you have direct unmediated access to—and in any science, even physics, it is always at the beginning and the end of any discovery: once you remove the intermediate steps, all discoveries and all their real-world applications and implications ultimately concern the state of human mind. However, shiny gains offered by physics and respective technological advances can be blinding enough that we forget what’s fundamental.
- snapcaster 3y agoit IS pseudoscience. Wake up! Every single thing laypeople learn about psychology and experiment results turns out to be made up! there is not a single piece of value in the existing field because even if there were you couldn't possibly separate it from the junk!
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYou said it > Every single thing laypeople learn about psychology and experiment Laypeople miss-understand something, then blame the psychologist for their own miss-understanding. Sounds like you and a lot of comments here.
- snapcaster 3y agoEvery single notable experiment I was taught about in Psychology class has shown to not be reproducible at all. What am I misunderstanding?
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYou're missing the part of science where you analyze the results, ask yourself why it isn't reproducible, maybe because of some other variables that changed, or variables that were unknown, then re-hypothesizing, creating new models, re-formulating the studies, and doing it all again until they are re-producible. Since Psychology is about humans, and how they respond, then it is possible to have Psychology studies about Psychology studies, and study why humans are biased, why are studies biased, and control for those factors. Because a subject is difficult doesn't mean toss it all out the window. "shucks this stuff is hard, darn, guess it's all BS".
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoIt is going to sound a little weird, but compared to physics, psychology is closer to alchemy than chemistry. That does not mean it is not useful in making some predictions and that it does not offer an explanation, but obviously it does not offer the same level of predictions or explanations that post-alchemy psychology could offer. How do you even begin to setup an experiment where you setup a real study of human interaction without breaking any ethical norms? Before you object to this line of thinking, consider that Milgram experiment would not be allowed today. If so, how can the field advance?
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoThat is a good point. But human experiments are still allowed, just severely curtailed. Seems like other fields are able to advance with observational studies, why is Psychology singled out as being impossible. If studies can't be re-produced, then analyze why and try again until it can be. All the doomsayer arguments in this thread is weird. Who would ever say "man this double slit thing is tough to understand, maybe we shouldn't do physics anymore".