4 ms·

* 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 poi

* 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?

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?