4 ms·

It's the science envy. Psychology (despite the replication crisis) firmly established itself as a hard science. Taking the classical distinction of psychology a

by _glass 3y ago

It's the science envy. Psychology (despite the replication crisis) firmly established itself as a hard science. Taking the classical distinction of psychology as based on the individual, and sociology on the emerging properties of social systems, we cannot simply infer that the properties of the individual align to social situations. I think we in the social sciences with our departure from positivism are unable to produce clear laws, or direct applications, we're more concerned with understanding, and not explaining. I think I am just expanding on your point.

eimrine 3y ago
> Psychology (despite the replication crisis) firmly established itself as a hard science. What a shameless lie! Replication is the key distinction between sciences and talkings. Do you even know what "Nullius in verba" motto is about?
- culebron21 3y ago
  No, it's not "talkings". Definitons of science are not based on replication/reproducibility. Harder one, Popper's, says that a theory must provide a verifiable/falsifiable prediction, and it should be correct. (Problem is, there are too many probabilistic things, so you must lower the bar, by checking error rate/margin.) But not everything is verifiable or falsifiable strictly to this definition. Then it's Kuhn's definition: a systematic observation and description of nature phoenomenons in own strict terms. Anthropology and sociology are exactly in this department. Just an example what discovery sociologists made in mid-XX century: poor people tend to learn habits that lead them to risky and reckless behavior, stop them from getting education, etc. (What's the cause is another big talk, too broad for this thread.) And just talks by intellectuals would be like "they're just fools", "they have some genetic deficience", or maybe "they just haven't money, with enough money they'd be fine". That's talks. Popular psychology that drops broad and seemingly profound judgements and commands, but that have nothing of substance -- that is talks too.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    Thank you for a thoughtful response! I always used to have some suspicions about my opinion on psy* studies. I used to search any systematic observations here and I have found exactly one knowledge bomb - Weber-Fechner law [1] You gave me examples which are not even defend psy* fields as a scientific ones because your examples are from economic fields (I made pro-psy* argumentation here reasonably better). But one systematic observation per all the field is not enough to build a science. It is enough to build religion. Do you want a proof that psy* is a religion? Everything in psy* which is neither neuro-physiology nor economy nor philosophy nor talkings nor [1] nor palliative medicine is... a legal enforcement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  I think they meant that they tried to, but in doing so, highlighted their hubris and then they grew an identity crisis.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > Replication is the key distinction between sciences and talkings. Do you even know what "Nullius in verba" motto is about? Replication being a necessity is the opposite of my interpretation of the Wikipedia description. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
  - pdonis 3y ago
    Apply "nullius in verba" to someone else's report of an experiment they did, but you didn't witness. What do you come up with? I agree it would be nice if we didn't have to go to that extreme, but the history of science, and of scientists either fooling themselves about their own results or being willing to outright fabricate results, has made it necessary. The Royal Society when they originally came up with their motto might not have fully grasped that possibility.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > Apply "nullius in verba" to someone else's report of an experiment they did, but you didn't witness. What do you come up with? I come up with "It is unknown", though this is a rather unusual way of thinking these days. > I agree it would be nice if we didn't have to go to that extreme, but the history of science, and of scientists either fooling themselves about their own results or being willing to outright fabricate results, has made it necessary. The Royal Society when they originally came up with their motto might not have fully grasped that possibility. Oh, you are preaching to the choir!

by _glass 3y ago

eimrine 3y ago

> Psychology (despite the replication crisis) firmly established itself as a hard science. What a shameless lie! Replication is the key distinction between sciences and talkings. Do you even know what "Nullius in verba" motto is about?

culebron21 3y ago
No, it's not "talkings". Definitons of science are not based on replication/reproducibility. Harder one, Popper's, says that a theory must provide a verifiable/falsifiable prediction, and it should be correct. (Problem is, there are too many probabilistic things, so you must lower the bar, by checking error rate/margin.) But not everything is verifiable or falsifiable strictly to this definition. Then it's Kuhn's definition: a systematic observation and description of nature phoenomenons in own strict terms. Anthropology and sociology are exactly in this department. Just an example what discovery sociologists made in mid-XX century: poor people tend to learn habits that lead them to risky and reckless behavior, stop them from getting education, etc. (What's the cause is another big talk, too broad for this thread.) And just talks by intellectuals would be like "they're just fools", "they have some genetic deficience", or maybe "they just haven't money, with enough money they'd be fine". That's talks. Popular psychology that drops broad and seemingly profound judgements and commands, but that have nothing of substance -- that is talks too.
- eimrine 3y ago
  Thank you for a thoughtful response! I always used to have some suspicions about my opinion on psy* studies. I used to search any systematic observations here and I have found exactly one knowledge bomb - Weber-Fechner law [1] You gave me examples which are not even defend psy* fields as a scientific ones because your examples are from economic fields (I made pro-psy* argumentation here reasonably better). But one systematic observation per all the field is not enough to build a science. It is enough to build religion. Do you want a proof that psy* is a religion? Everything in psy* which is neither neuro-physiology nor economy nor philosophy nor talkings nor [1] nor palliative medicine is... a legal enforcement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law
mensetmanusman 3y ago
I think they meant that they tried to, but in doing so, highlighted their hubris and then they grew an identity crisis.
mistermann 3y ago
> Replication is the key distinction between sciences and talkings. Do you even know what "Nullius in verba" motto is about? Replication being a necessity is the opposite of my interpretation of the Wikipedia description. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
- pdonis 3y ago
  Apply "nullius in verba" to someone else's report of an experiment they did, but you didn't witness. What do you come up with? I agree it would be nice if we didn't have to go to that extreme, but the history of science, and of scientists either fooling themselves about their own results or being willing to outright fabricate results, has made it necessary. The Royal Society when they originally came up with their motto might not have fully grasped that possibility.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > Apply "nullius in verba" to someone else's report of an experiment they did, but you didn't witness. What do you come up with? I come up with "It is unknown", though this is a rather unusual way of thinking these days. > I agree it would be nice if we didn't have to go to that extreme, but the history of science, and of scientists either fooling themselves about their own results or being willing to outright fabricate results, has made it necessary. The Royal Society when they originally came up with their motto might not have fully grasped that possibility. Oh, you are preaching to the choir!