4 ms·

> Psychology is certainly a science that has produced tons of repeatable results ... False, and false. Psychology is not science (defined as a discipline steer

by lutusp 13y ago

> Psychology is certainly a science that has produced tons of repeatable results ... False, and false. Psychology is not science (defined as a discipline steered by empirical evidence) and has not produced any repeatable, testable, empirical, falsifiable evidence or theories. Why? Because psychology's topic is the mind, and the mind is not -- cannot be -- a source for empirical evidence. For psychology to become a science, it would have to study an empirical organ like the brain. Instead, psychology relies on self-reporting by the owners of the minds under study. This has always been, and is now, an impenetrable barrier to entry into the world of science. Title: "Why psychology isn't science" Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-... Quote: "But to claim it [psychology] is 'science' is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth." "That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf."

dragonwriter 13y ago
> For psychology to become a science, it would have to study an empirical organ like the brain. No, it could just study an empirical thing like behavior (which, incidentally, it does.) > Instead, psychology relies on self-reporting by the owners of the minds under study. Some branches of psychology study the relationship between other empirical facts and people's self-described experience of mental states, but both the other fact and the descriptions are empirical facts.
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> For psychology to become a science, it would have to study an empirical organ like the brain. > >No, it could just study an empirical thing like behavior (which, incidentally, it does.) Anthropologists study behavior. Psychologists study behavior, then come to unsupportable conclusions about the mental sources of that behavior. It is the second step that (a) distinguishes psychology from anthropology, and (b) prevents psychology from taking any claim on science. In a nutshell, psychology studies the mind. The mind, not a physical organ, cannot provide empirical evidence, evidence gathered from reality in a way that forces agreement about its meaning between similarly equipped observers. Science requires empirical evidence. Therefore psychology is not a science. > Some branches of psychology study the relationship between other empirical facts and people's self-described experience of mental states, but both the other fact and the descriptions are empirical facts. So which part of "Psychology's topic is the mind" are you not getting? No mind, no psychology. Everything that psychology studies relates to the mind, the field's topic of study. "Why psychology isn't science" : http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-... Quote: "But to claim it [psychology] is 'science' is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth." "That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf."
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > In a nutshell, psychology studies the mind. The mind, not a physical organ, cannot provide empirical evidence The mind is a name given to a collection of epiphonemena of various physical sources, included, but not limited to, the brain and other physical organs. As such, it is no less a valid subject of empirical investigation as any other collection of physical phenomenon. > Science requires empirical evidence. And psychology gathers empirical evidence from environmental facts and their relation to physical behaviors.

by lutusp 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> For psychology to become a science, it would have to study an empirical organ like the brain. No, it could just study an empirical thing like behavior (which, incidentally, it does.) > Instead, psychology relies on self-reporting by the owners of the minds under study. Some branches of psychology study the relationship between other empirical facts and people's self-described experience of mental states, but both the other fact and the descriptions are empirical facts.

lutusp 13y ago
>> For psychology to become a science, it would have to study an empirical organ like the brain. > >No, it could just study an empirical thing like behavior (which, incidentally, it does.) Anthropologists study behavior. Psychologists study behavior, then come to unsupportable conclusions about the mental sources of that behavior. It is the second step that (a) distinguishes psychology from anthropology, and (b) prevents psychology from taking any claim on science. In a nutshell, psychology studies the mind. The mind, not a physical organ, cannot provide empirical evidence, evidence gathered from reality in a way that forces agreement about its meaning between similarly equipped observers. Science requires empirical evidence. Therefore psychology is not a science. > Some branches of psychology study the relationship between other empirical facts and people's self-described experience of mental states, but both the other fact and the descriptions are empirical facts. So which part of "Psychology's topic is the mind" are you not getting? No mind, no psychology. Everything that psychology studies relates to the mind, the field's topic of study. "Why psychology isn't science" : http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-... Quote: "But to claim it [psychology] is 'science' is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth." "That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf."
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > In a nutshell, psychology studies the mind. The mind, not a physical organ, cannot provide empirical evidence The mind is a name given to a collection of epiphonemena of various physical sources, included, but not limited to, the brain and other physical organs. As such, it is no less a valid subject of empirical investigation as any other collection of physical phenomenon. > Science requires empirical evidence. And psychology gathers empirical evidence from environmental facts and their relation to physical behaviors.