Is psychology a pseudoscience?

Depends. Clinical psychology is based on empirical evidence and biology so, no.
Some methods of therapy have basis and others are kumbaya horseshit.

e.g. if your therapist diagnoses you with problems immediately detrimental to your well being and that of others and suggests you take cold baths and meditate instead of referring you to a psychiatrist for medication, get another therapist.

No. Way too many hacks and charlatans teaching and in practice though, not to mention entire subjects are ignored or pushed aside because they don't fit the political narrative pushed by leftist academics.

>Tfw IQ studies are reproducible

Psychology should be considered a branch of philosophy not sceince

Yes

That's down to lazy peer reviewing and pop cultures' obsession (often misguided) with psychology. Cosmo or some shit magazine will pick up a lab report of a silly inconclusive experiment made by some MA students and then blow up it's significance, taking on a life of its own.

I can't recall if it's that article (I've read it before, didn't read it again just now), but there's a problem with the test subjects being largely other psych students -- more likely to be politically non-conservative, middle-class and women, for what that's worth.

Nothing really wrong with psychology in and of itself.

Some branches within psychology are not very 'hard' empirically-based, while others are.

is sociology science?

Less so than psychology

some of it

>blow up it's significance

Those reproducibility findings were based on what the studies themselves claimed to have found, not on what magazines claimed they found.

subjects aren't ignored, they just arent very interesting. feel like that guy is specifically referring to intelligence and race. its really not a very interesting topic.

sounds like psychology needs some masculinization to some extent.

the student thing isnt necessarily a maaaassive problem, though maybe more so for individual differences where results may be more dependent on the social traits of the population you use.

this

Reproductions and the lack thereof are big problem in all sciences. You are also missing that it's actually a positive sign that this reproduction study came from within the field.

By the way: The fail percentages are even higher in medicine, yet nobody would ever think that medicine is not a science. The only reason why that paper got such traction is because it fuels preconceived notions people have about psychology.

>not to mention entire subjects are ignored or pushed aside because they don't fit the political narrative pushed by leftist academics.
Like what? Let me guess, you mean IQ studies. In that case, I'll say that you have no clue what you're talking about in advance.

...

No

Is a parent's love for his child empirically definable? No. A brain in love is different than one not in love, but that difference is not love. Same with psychology.

It's more of a tool than an actual science

Is pedagogy a science?

>The fail percentages are even higher in medicine

The one that included medicine was just a survey. The psychology one was an actual attempt to reproduce a large number of past studies.

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

>study of how the human body and mind function
>It's useless because we're not advanced enough to completely understand

>study of how gravity works hundreds of years ago
>Fuck off newton this is useless pseudoscience you don't know nearly enough to make objective conclusions, clearly this whole "physics" thing is pseudoscience. How do you know these rules apply everywhere in the universe? It should be considered a philosophy rather than being bunched up with intelligent alchemists such as myself

Fucking nailed it

The problem isn't that we aren't advanced enough to understand it yet, the problem is it's a baseless pseudoscience.

What are you even trying to argue? psychology is inherently biological because you're studying physics areas of the brain of whatever and figuring out what does what. Are you claiming we'll never understand the intricacies of the human mind, that it's a useless, "baseless" pursuit. All worthy pursuits started like this: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. You might not find all the answers, and certain things may overlap or contradict in the early stages of your understanding, but this does not mean there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel. Psychology is inherently performed like a science even if it can't always be as objective, it uses the scientific method, it doesn't follow the logic of philosophy or political science, it doesn't fit in humanities any better than it fits in the sciences.

I bet in 100 years when we all understand it a lot better and start emulating the human brain, the technological benefits could be massive. To shoot down an entire school of thought after after only a century or so is ridiculous, you think physics and chemistry just plopped onto the scene as respectable pursuits?
Your stance is inherently antiintellectual, actual scientists understand this while college STEM students such as yourself go out into the world and attack everything that doesn't fit your mold.

*physical areas of the brain or whatever

>you're studying physical areas of the brain

That's called neurology, not psychology.

They overlap like crazy, use the same technology for study, and are inherently sister-schools of thought. Neurology is more about the facts of the brain itself and psychology is about taking that information and attempting to change behavior or thought-processes based one what is physically known about the brain. The more neurology advances, the more psychology advances. One is the primary source and the other is the textbook written using the primary source. They'll both benefit from progress, there is no sense in narrowing perspectives.

It's studying the reactions that are derived from chemicals in the brain to stuff.
How organisms and cells come and alternate about involve chemical reactions, but the subject of studying them isn't just Chemistry.