Inspired by another thread !ifrickinglovescience
What's your definition of "real science?" It's not clear what "real science" or even "the scientific method" refers to because the methods employed by scientists are actually quite heterogeneous. For example, is science all about "making testable predictions in advance of falsifying observations?" Well, what about astronomy and anatomy, where a lot of "science" is just... brute empiricism (also known as "just looking").
A lot of psychology is just looking. For example, developmental psychologists watch babies grow up and notice all sorts of interesting things and then just... write them down. For instance, did you know that 3 month old infants will look surprised when they see the law of object permanence violated? Apparently babies come into the world with some organization in advance of experience that allows them to grasp basic physical principles and build up expectations about how objects will behave based on their experiences.
I like what you pointed out that we just have to look sometimes, but it falls apart because of one simple reason... reproducibility. Does the heart always pump blood? Yes, unless the person is dead of course. About 5 liters apparently. This uniformity, this measurement, the near infinitel reproducibility of this observation I would say does make it real science.
What's the difference between you and everyone else who has just started learning about a topic and immediately thinks they know everything about it?
Plus, like, if you think the phrase 'the research suggests' is unscientific I am unsure as to what you think science actually is. You'll find that phrase in papers for every scientific discipline; it's a very scientific phrase. What is the problem here?
https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/82uefr/cmv_psychology_is_not_a_real_science_and_its/
I think psych as a field is still represented in media by therapy, which is super stigmatized and has an unfortunate history. It is irritating when other science people dismiss psych, because we literally use the same scientific method.
The hard science in Physics in the early stages is based on simple mathematical relationships such as F=ma . This is also easily shown via experiment to be true and is also shown to be correct astronomically throughout the universe.
The hard science in psychology is one of a more statistical nature and also must contain many assumptions. It is more difficult to understand to the layman.
!mathematics thoughts on that?
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kz43n/dear_reddit_do_you_think_psychology_is_a_science/
I had PTSD. Shit is crazy. Mental illness and the treatments..therapy tactics and meds are very real. I had textbook PTSD and textbook treatment
What are thoughts dramanauts?
What is psychology?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I liked the way Feynman put it.
It's not a science because it does not deal with measurable, quantifiable phenomena and has no reproducibility potential, but just as with something like ancient medicine, there is circumstantial evidence to show that it works sometimes and having something work sometimes is better than nothing. Thus while it is not a science and there isn't a sound theory, it shouldn't be completely dismissed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That is entirely too evenhanded and fair a take for /r/drama. How dare you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh don't worry I haven't actually read the post. I just instinctively reacted to the title
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
There's probably some experiments you could run that would be reproducible but regrettably we consider them "unethical" and "wrong" so we can't run them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're probably thinking of neuroscience
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Neuroscience is the fricking real science behind psychology and we know absolutely none of it, I took some neuroscience classes in college and half of neuro 101 was fricking "this happens but we don't know why."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sounds like every science tbqhwy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
my favorite is that a lot of the antipsychotic drugs theubdont know how it works and basically admit that not enough reseaech has been done on them butt they perscribe them like candy. Marijuana by comparison hasnt had enough research on it even though its been in use for thousands of years, butt thats a good thing bc pot heads are lazy/dont wash they peepee
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
same is true for electroshock therapy
they realized that zapping peoples brains made them feel better
why? no one knows
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Hopefully in the near future
neuroscience and philosophy 
of mind replace psychology.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The black box problem is massive for neuro. Right now the best we have is hehe look at these antigens they are pretty colors :) but since so much of psychology is "thinking" we are very far away from drowning in the tub like a Texas mama
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
X doubt. Another issue with these experiments is they stop being reproducible when the subjects are aware of them. Suddenly when people know how you expect them to act they might act differently
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Behaviorism was scientific. But also very neurodivergent. Companies use it to make money, but psychcels don't like to talk about it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yea I had this thought once too. As weird as it seems, there is probably not a single positive thing to come out from us learning more about behavioral patterns and group psychology. Instead it always seems to loop around to population control, be it intentional or not. Whether this says anything about the field itself or more so about its applications or human nature, that I do not know
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
we should have psychologists figure out which one it is
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
From the op:
Sounds like a reproducible statement to me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Was he as charitable with his opinion on religion?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't know, I never considered him an authority on that subject so I really have no idea what his opinions were
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context