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.
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.
I ain't about to explain the entire scientific method so heres a link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Check a dictionary r-slur
So in other words a single correct answer that is true regardless of opinions
How can you consider yourself a philosophycell if you've never even considered the basic philosophical question of why is killing wrong. It is a seemingly simple question that is genuinely hard to give an answer to.
If god doesn't exist, it can be argued to be a neutral action because the deceased ceases to exist and can no longer feel any positive or negative emotions. If god does exist, you're simply sending them to the afterlife that they deserve to go to. If you think it's wrong to send someone to heck, that begs the question "Is it possible for god to be amoral?".
You can say it's wrong because it hurts the freinds and family of the deceased, but that argument doesn't work if the person killed has no friends or family.
Give me one infallible reason why killing is wrong.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
😂😂😂
Anyway, "the scientific method" (doesn't exist, btw) is justified philosophically, which you say doesn't give us any objectively correct answers. So it seems like science isn't justified by anything and thus can't gice us objectively correct answers either.
So "Borpa hates wh*tes" is not objectively correct because it depends on my opinion?
And? Who cares, we aren't talking about whether the question is hard to answer, but whether the question has an objectively correct answer. You say it doesn't, but how do you know this?
Also it's not a hard question: Murder is wrong.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You never answered my question you cute twink. I asked why murder is wrong, not if it's wrong. This is the problem with modern colleges, It creates r-slurs like you think they're smart because they took a course that told them what to think instead of coming to conclusions themselves. Murder being wrong is a basic facet of our society and modern moral system, but philosophy isn't just about arguing based on our existing moral framework. One of the most fundamental parts of philosophy is questioning human nature and why we have the morals we do.
I only had to pull out the dictionary because your b-word butt don't know what objectively means
Wow, you're finally starting to get it. There are no scientific facts, just scientific theories. Theories get disproven all the time. I agree the way the scientific community handles evidence is a philosophical debate, but as I said, there is no single objectively correct way to determine the criteria for evidence.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yea I don't care to answer that and it doesn't matter. Anyway, YOU are not answering my basic questions pertaining to your fundamental point: How do you know there are no objectively correct answers to philosophical questions?
Because it's not a well-defined concept and dictionaries won't help you with that. Do you mean viewpoint independent? Or non-relative? Or both?
You were the one who started by saying science produces "objectively correct answers" and philosophy doesn't, but seems like you are now saying that that was wrong.
Anyway, take a philosophy class and then come back to your comments here. You will be amazed at just how stupid everything you're saying here is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context