6 ms·

The study of human behavior is based primarily on subjective measurements and double blind studies are generally not feasible. The level of rigor often expecte

The study of human behavior is based primarily on subjective measurements and double blind studies are generally not feasible. The level of rigor often expected in hard sciences is generally not possible in the study of human behavior.

vacri 12y ago
This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. If science required double-blind trials, then you'd be throwing out a lot of physics, too (for example, the study of planetary motion). Science is 'robust reporting and observation', not 'double-blind trials'. The more robust your methods, the stronger your case - double-blind trials add a lot of robustness. Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science (eg dark matter, which we still have no idea about).
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I would describe it as a soft science, but the point I was trying to make is that there are simple and obvious reasons why the public is skeptical of the field.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable theories backed up by empirical observations. If we only have observations, it's not science, because observations are neither particularly useful nor falsifiable. > Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science ... Many commentators on this issue argue that an empirical, falsifiable theory that is able to make predictions about things not yet observed is a requirement for science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force." "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain." Also, very important, observations (descriptions) can only be a preliminary to shaping an explanation, a testable theory (an explanation). Observations without a theoretical dimension are indistinguishable from stamp collecting and are a step toward science, but are not science themselves.

vacri 12y ago

This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. If science required double-blind trials, then you'd be throwing out a lot of physics, too (for example, the study of planetary motion). Science is 'robust reporting and observation', not 'double-blind trials'. The more robust your methods, the stronger your case - double-blind trials add a lot of robustness. Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science (eg dark matter, which we still have no idea about).

seanflyon 12y ago
I would describe it as a soft science, but the point I was trying to make is that there are simple and obvious reasons why the public is skeptical of the field.
lutusp 12y ago
> This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable theories backed up by empirical observations. If we only have observations, it's not science, because observations are neither particularly useful nor falsifiable. > Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science ... Many commentators on this issue argue that an empirical, falsifiable theory that is able to make predictions about things not yet observed is a requirement for science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force." "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain." Also, very important, observations (descriptions) can only be a preliminary to shaping an explanation, a testable theory (an explanation). Observations without a theoretical dimension are indistinguishable from stamp collecting and are a step toward science, but are not science themselves.