6 ms·

That's bullshit. It's like if you tried to say classical physics and chemistry were not science because they provided a description e.g. given heat, on average

That's bullshit. It's like if you tried to say classical physics and chemistry were not science because they provided a description e.g. given heat, on average particles increase in velocity, on average exerting more force/pressure, which on average, is along this formula. Bullshit.

lutusp 2y ago
> That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false." ... "According to Popper, some disciplines that have claimed scientific validity—e.g., astrology, metaphysics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis —are not empirical sciences, because their subject matter cannot be falsified in this manner." * Psychology studies the mind. * The mind is not part of nature. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature. * Q.E.D. > Bullshit. I believe you said that already, again without a supporting argument.
- jonnycomputer 2y ago
  * Psychology studies the mind. Wrong. * The mind is not part of nature. Asserted without evidence. But, frankly, you can point to "the mind" like you can point to "the soul" or "the spirit". You can't. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature Yes, and no. Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. Why? Because complex, aggregate phenomena are multi-causal, and often historically particular, and there is no practical means to collect enough data, or design experiments, that can untangle all the causal threads. Remember that the phenomenon being explained is already at a higher level of abstraction over a series of objects and events that have a family resemblance. I can tell you (because I've looked at a lot of them) that no two human brains are the same. * Q.E.D. QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Mathematical ones, you might say. There is a reason that classical, logic based, approaches to reasoning about the real world (e.g. in robotics failed). (:
  - lutusp 2y ago
    >> Psychology studies the mind. > Wrong. Wikipedia: Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology): "Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior." Do avoid pointless contradictions. Psychology's goal is to scientifically study the mind -- whether they can actually do that remains an open question. >> * The mind is not part of nature. > Asserted without evidence. That would require proof of a negative, the most common tactic of a pseudoscientist ("You cannot prove Bigfoot false? All right, then -- he exists.") This means the positive burden of evidence for the thesis that the mind is part of nature belongs to psychologists -- it is, after all, their claim. > Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. That's right, and assertions that cannot be falsified, cannot become part of science. This is one reason string theory is in limbo -- no falsifiable experimental validation. This is actually a bad example in modern times, because string theory has pretty much been discarded for multiple reasons, its untestability being just one. >> * Q.E.D. > QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Wait ... it's your argument that saying "which was to be demonstrated" has a strict domain of applicability?
- SubiculumCode 2y ago
  The mind is not part of nature? That is quite the dualist, non-scientific, claim. I don't know what kind of mind you refer, but in today's psychology, there is no dualism, or claim that predictable psychological phemenom aren't based in interactions between matter. Just like early classical physics using idealized construct created theories to explain and predict changes in pressure and temperature, so do psychologists creat idealized models to predict changes in behavior. An analogy, two balls on a pool table collide. You idealized the balls, make observations, then build a model on how the variables relate(speed, mass, etc). You form a hypothesis about "laws" that govern behavior, then apply it to a similar system and test if it generalizes. But those laws aren't reality, it's a model of reality. This is the process of science, and it's exactly what psychology research does. We try to form a hypothesis that describes a set of behaviors, often with mathematical models (in cognitive psych), then apply it to another set balls/people to see if it generalizes. As to Popper, there is no singular definition of science, and Britannica is hardly an authority on this complex matter. If I hypothesize that there is an age-related increase in false alarms to a specific type of memory cue, and I repeatedly see the opposite age related trajectory, then I have falsified the hypothesis, either requiring greater specialty (e.g. verbal probes but not visual probes) or dropped altogether for an alternative, more encompassing theory. It is really difficult for me to comprehend your point of view as anything but one primarily driven by personal biases.
  - lutusp 2y ago
    > The mind is not part of nature? Nope. It's a theoretical construct with no empirically measurable properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem : "The mind–body problem is a philosophical problem concerning the relationship between thought and consciousness in the human mind and body." This is a problem because there's no obvious connection between the mind and everyday reality. > As to Popper, there is no singular definition of science ... This is not true. Falsifiability and empirical evidence are part of the universally accepted definition of science. This is why mathematics, as important as it is to science, is not itself accepted as a science -- like psychology, it doesn't address empirical reality. Carl Sagan, quoted from "The baloney detection kit" (https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-...): "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsiﬁed. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsiﬁable, are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle—an electron, say—in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result." > It is really difficult for me to comprehend your point of view as anything but one primarily driven by personal biases. You do understand, don't you, that when you avoid the topic and digress to personal attacks, you acknowledge that you don't have a meaningful counterargument? In the mid-1990s, during the repressed memory fad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory), about the time virgins began reporting imaginary rapes, the legal system realized they were being played and the falsely accused were released from prison. The reason? Psychology is not a science, consequently these bogus "repressed memories" weren't ever subjected to scientific standards of evidence. You need to realize that psychology's scientific standing isn't just a philosophical tea party -- it has real-world consequences. The wrongly accused repressed memory victims were released because psychology is not a science. The earlier "refrigerator mother" fad fell apart because psychology is not a science. Pre-frontal lobotomy was outlawed because psychology is not a science. More recently, Asperger syndrome was abandoned because anyone with some acting ability could get the diagnosis, and because Albert Einstein, Bill Gates and Isaac Newton were assigned the diagnosis it because the first popular fad diagnosis, attractive to young people. Consequently the diagnosis became an epidemic, after which psychologists abandoned it, explaining that it isn't "based in science". If you decide to reply, try addressing the topic.

lutusp 2y ago

> That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false." ... "According to Popper, some disciplines that have claimed scientific validity—e.g., astrology, metaphysics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis —are not empirical sciences, because their subject matter cannot be falsified in this manner." * Psychology studies the mind. * The mind is not part of nature. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature. * Q.E.D. > Bullshit. I believe you said that already, again without a supporting argument.

jonnycomputer 2y ago
* Psychology studies the mind. Wrong. * The mind is not part of nature. Asserted without evidence. But, frankly, you can point to "the mind" like you can point to "the soul" or "the spirit". You can't. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature Yes, and no. Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. Why? Because complex, aggregate phenomena are multi-causal, and often historically particular, and there is no practical means to collect enough data, or design experiments, that can untangle all the causal threads. Remember that the phenomenon being explained is already at a higher level of abstraction over a series of objects and events that have a family resemblance. I can tell you (because I've looked at a lot of them) that no two human brains are the same. * Q.E.D. QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Mathematical ones, you might say. There is a reason that classical, logic based, approaches to reasoning about the real world (e.g. in robotics failed). (:
- lutusp 2y ago
  >> Psychology studies the mind. > Wrong. Wikipedia: Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology): "Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior." Do avoid pointless contradictions. Psychology's goal is to scientifically study the mind -- whether they can actually do that remains an open question. >> * The mind is not part of nature. > Asserted without evidence. That would require proof of a negative, the most common tactic of a pseudoscientist ("You cannot prove Bigfoot false? All right, then -- he exists.") This means the positive burden of evidence for the thesis that the mind is part of nature belongs to psychologists -- it is, after all, their claim. > Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. That's right, and assertions that cannot be falsified, cannot become part of science. This is one reason string theory is in limbo -- no falsifiable experimental validation. This is actually a bad example in modern times, because string theory has pretty much been discarded for multiple reasons, its untestability being just one. >> * Q.E.D. > QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Wait ... it's your argument that saying "which was to be demonstrated" has a strict domain of applicability?
SubiculumCode 2y ago
The mind is not part of nature? That is quite the dualist, non-scientific, claim. I don't know what kind of mind you refer, but in today's psychology, there is no dualism, or claim that predictable psychological phemenom aren't based in interactions between matter. Just like early classical physics using idealized construct created theories to explain and predict changes in pressure and temperature, so do psychologists creat idealized models to predict changes in behavior. An analogy, two balls on a pool table collide. You idealized the balls, make observations, then build a model on how the variables relate(speed, mass, etc). You form a hypothesis about "laws" that govern behavior, then apply it to a similar system and test if it generalizes. But those laws aren't reality, it's a model of reality. This is the process of science, and it's exactly what psychology research does. We try to form a hypothesis that describes a set of behaviors, often with mathematical models (in cognitive psych), then apply it to another set balls/people to see if it generalizes. As to Popper, there is no singular definition of science, and Britannica is hardly an authority on this complex matter. If I hypothesize that there is an age-related increase in false alarms to a specific type of memory cue, and I repeatedly see the opposite age related trajectory, then I have falsified the hypothesis, either requiring greater specialty (e.g. verbal probes but not visual probes) or dropped altogether for an alternative, more encompassing theory. It is really difficult for me to comprehend your point of view as anything but one primarily driven by personal biases.
- lutusp 2y ago
  > The mind is not part of nature? Nope. It's a theoretical construct with no empirically measurable properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem : "The mind–body problem is a philosophical problem concerning the relationship between thought and consciousness in the human mind and body." This is a problem because there's no obvious connection between the mind and everyday reality. > As to Popper, there is no singular definition of science ... This is not true. Falsifiability and empirical evidence are part of the universally accepted definition of science. This is why mathematics, as important as it is to science, is not itself accepted as a science -- like psychology, it doesn't address empirical reality. Carl Sagan, quoted from "The baloney detection kit" (https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-...): "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsiﬁed. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsiﬁable, are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle—an electron, say—in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result." > It is really difficult for me to comprehend your point of view as anything but one primarily driven by personal biases. You do understand, don't you, that when you avoid the topic and digress to personal attacks, you acknowledge that you don't have a meaningful counterargument? In the mid-1990s, during the repressed memory fad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory), about the time virgins began reporting imaginary rapes, the legal system realized they were being played and the falsely accused were released from prison. The reason? Psychology is not a science, consequently these bogus "repressed memories" weren't ever subjected to scientific standards of evidence. You need to realize that psychology's scientific standing isn't just a philosophical tea party -- it has real-world consequences. The wrongly accused repressed memory victims were released because psychology is not a science. The earlier "refrigerator mother" fad fell apart because psychology is not a science. Pre-frontal lobotomy was outlawed because psychology is not a science. More recently, Asperger syndrome was abandoned because anyone with some acting ability could get the diagnosis, and because Albert Einstein, Bill Gates and Isaac Newton were assigned the diagnosis it because the first popular fad diagnosis, attractive to young people. Consequently the diagnosis became an epidemic, after which psychologists abandoned it, explaining that it isn't "based in science". If you decide to reply, try addressing the topic.