.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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
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
More options
Context