4 ms·
Which is why it's not a real science. No one is saying that "scientists" working on psychology are negligent, but that it's impossible for psychology to meet th
by jiofj 3y ago
Which is why it's not a real science. No one is saying that "scientists" working on psychology are negligent, but that it's impossible for psychology to meet the requirements of a real science.
- micromacrofoot 3y agoI think it's a little harmful to start saying "real science" — this is something that is at times meant to discredit psychology entirely, so it's an unfortunately loaded phrase. I think they're still doing science, it's just much more difficult given physical and ethical constraints.
- mrkeen 3y agoThe arguments in this thread: * Psychology is not a "real" science because it doesn't produce quality evidence. * But quality psychological evidence is (too) hard to produce. See how the second point doesn't really refute the first?
- micromacrofoot 3y agoYou're missing the point that calling something "not real" is very often used as a method to discredit it. Saying "not real" discredits the fact that there are more barriers here. That's my primary issue with this. Phrenology can also be called "not real science" but it doesn't seem fair to paint both with such a broad brush. There's more nuance involved than an off-the-cuff "not real." Though at this point it all feels too belabored to carry on.