¿Are sociology and psychology sciences?

Yes you are. Completely wrong

No. Psychology and Sociology leave the realm of what is falsifiable. While all scientific data collection is technically subject to human bias, these two fields derive their core data from subjective interpretations of subjective experiences, as opposed to subjective interpretation of objective occurrences.

>leave the realm of what is falsifiable
But that is wrong retard

They aren't hard sciences (kind of economics).

You can do experiements though and still make observations. Its hard to say if results are causal though.

I know during my studies of psychology in college that Psychologist doctorates really enjoyed the whole twins separated at birth issue.

You mean psychiatry. Most psychologists aren't allowed to prescribe drugs. Psychiatrists are.

They aren't allowed to use humans for experiments because it's seen as unethical.

So most of their work is pretty subjective and always changing because they can't test and recreate real results.

>They aren't allowed to use humans for experiments because it's seen as unethical.

You can still observe humans.

Say X twins have the probability of both being:

Drunkarks
Homos
Divorced
Etc...

That is still useful knowledge if you can pin down statistics.

Hume, Russell, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.

Answer: it depends on the government grand funding scheme in your country.

And what the fuck am I thinking. They have human psychology experiments all the time.

They have to be voluntary and no permanent harm can come to the participants.

youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

That depends on the work in question. Compare Freuds "Die Traumdeutung/The Interpretation of Dreams" and Maria Jahodas "Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal/Marienthal: the sociography of an unemployed community".

It uses the scientific method to make theories that can make predictions with fair accuracy. So yeah it's a science.

IMO Sociology isn't really a science.

Psychology is a science depending on your field of Psychology. Maybe I'm biased since I'm going to college for neuropsychology or psychopharmacology

Sociology: Parts of it are, parts of it are not.

Psychology: Mostly, yes.

The problems are not the methods, some of the times. The problem is that some researchers really want something to be true and will twist the data in any way they can to prove it (even if the data shows otherwise) and in the case of psychology the need to come with something novel that will appear on the media, even if not true.

>scientific method
Time to read Feyerabend.

Sociology is not a science. Psychology is sometimes empirical, but most advances in the field were from non-scientists.

I don't read meme philosophers.

They're social sciences, in that they attempt to use scientific methods and research to explain and theorize real life phenomena

That's funny, because you obviously read Dawkins.

The scientific method isn't a Dawkins invention.

I thought we were suddenly talking about meme philosophers, not you making arguments from inauthority.

Humans are used all the time. Look up
Milgram et. al
Yuille and Cutshall et al
Sherif et al
Hofling et al
Most of the aforementioned studies and plenty of others also use quantified data as a means of making sure the results are objective. Other studies for further reference would be stuff like Gottesman and Shields and Ainsworth or Miyake's SST.
Lots of people make the mistake of thinking psychology is literally just case studies in the style of Freud or Genie (if you don't know about the Genie case, look it up, it makes for an interesting if slightly disturbing read), when in reality other approaches to psychology focus much more on the objective than the subjective.
Sociology, however, I don't know much about.

no. ultimately human behaviour is not quantifiable.

Nah we weren't. I said something and I assume you disagreed. But you didn't really give an argument.

They are.

>"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:"

>"A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject:"

t. Oxford dictionnary.

>¿Are sociology and psychology sciences?

Not in the same way that things like chemistry and biology are, yes they do a lot of observation but unlike the traditional sciences they take huge liberties when it comes to drawing conclusion on what they observe.

Of all the sciences it is by far the easiest to bullshit in and produces horrifically bigoted people. That said there is still some value in what they do

sorry if spam, just want to see them.

Many verbal treatments have shown almost as much benefit and fo longer terms. I wont even mention that pills in general burden your liver and psychoactive drugs are a whole other can of worms.

Why does it even matter. They are interesting and useful.

Psychology, most of it.

Sociology is just empty rhetoric and institutionalized racism.

Using the scientific method does not make a discipline a science, specially if you have the positivist definition of scientific method.

Astrologers also make observations on nature and make predictions based on this. But why do we say astrology is pseudoscience?

Because his statements, like most of the ones psychology makes (specially psychoanalysis) are not falsifiable.

Fields of psychology are. Things like behaviorism and cognition can be objectively observed and rely on falsifying. Psychoanalysis is a meme. Humanism is an even bigger meme. It's like the Lamarck view on change in species--it's dated at best.