.webp?h=8 "Top Hat (black) - Traditional. Classy. Elegant.")
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.
Genuinely crazy how little scientists know about what science is. STEMlords are just irredeemably stupid, they should all be forced to take mandatory philosophy classes until they manage to pass one.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you in psychology
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, I wish I was in a field with real people and not a hard science (they are all populated with the most braindead r-slurs)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I sometimes think the same but I've seen what happens when projects switch from sourcing patients from clinicians to self diagnosed people from twitter. I can't imagine being in a field where everything is collected through surveys
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Every empirical field is DOOMED tbh we should just be sitting still and thinking all day.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Philosophy is the gayest most pedantic thing on earth. During covid you r-slurred butt BIPOCs finally had moral quandries to solve left right and center. Instead of standing up and saying " these are philosophical questions about ethics and we will find an answer" you let r-slurred BIPOC pretend that science makes value statements. I had to listen to people say "science says we should do x".
That was your chance to matter and you guys continued to be useless. I had to explain to r-slurs that valuing "life years" was a biased decision and not inherent to science. That was your guys job.
Useless butt piece of shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not a philosopher u dumb r-slur my research is firmly on the science side of covid.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Then shut up about philosophy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's what my colleagues keep saying
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Philosophers never actually do anything, they only influence people who actually do stuff
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!codecels
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There'd be mass bombings.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!accelerationists
Make mandatory philosophy classes part og high school now
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Aren't there already mandatory ethics modules for codecels?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My Uni requires one lecture per course. They send some literal r-slur to lecture you on "ethics" (read: why capitalism is bad) while they entirely misunderstand what the class is about. If you question any point they make, the lecturer will just concede that ethics is subjective and that they're only there to "make you think"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It should be a class on the philosophy of software freedom
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The software wants to be free!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
if it makes codecels suffer, i am for it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
No thank you, we don't need midwits getting high off their own big brained philosophy takes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You are gay and a BIPOC
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Okay and?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It should be impossible to fail a philosophy class when the answer to every question is there is no objectively correct answer. Philosophycels always think they're so smart for repeating what someone smarter than them said 2000 years ago instead of coming up with answers themselves
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
On philosophy tests I've taken, I had to defend my position according to established categories of thought and say why I liked and disliked each category
and everything unique is "oh you're just reinventing the skocretaire arguement which is a combination of blagaboogatarianism and spagetto perspective... if you had read your text book you would know that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This is so immensely stupid it just proves my point. STEMcels try not to be sub 80 IQ r-slurs challengr IMPOSSIBLE
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Name a single philosophical question that has an objectively correct answer
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Most of them? If not, how could we do science? How could we learn anything about the world?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
By doing math and research that have nothing to do with philosophy?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How do you justify the methods of your research? How do you know it tells you "the truth"?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because it's backed up by data, observations, and calculations, not abstract philosophical thought experiments
And before you ask how do we know how much evidence is enough, that comes back to my original comment that there is no objectively correct answer. Scientists debate all the time whether theories have enough evidence
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's such a stupid answer again, MANDATORY PHILOSOPHY CLASSES FOR STEMCELS NOW!
How do you justify that "data, observations, and calculations" point us at the truth?
Says who? Is it objectively correct that there's no objectively correct answer? What does "objectively correct" even mean?
How do you know something like "is murder wrong?" doesn't have an objectively correct answer? Because people disagree? People disagree about literally everything!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Philosophy is logic based which puts it adjacent to math
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Especially predicate and sentential calculus
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Correct. We need 15 credits of Marxist theory inshallah
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Everyone knows that science is the platonic search for empirical truth, but not everyone has the capacity to value that search more than getting laid+paid
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
what is science
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
THIS IS WHAT MOST SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE LOL
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context