Is psychology a pseudoscience?

>Most "scientific" experiments circulating in the field cannot be replicated.
Whoa it's almost like some things exist that can't be quantifiable

Then it's not science.

Unlike what claims, there are plenty of studies with results that can be replicated.

It most certainly adheres to the scientific method, and the people who say it doesn't don't know what they're talking about.

then science doesn't have all answers

ALL of them have to have results that can be replicated. If they can't, then they're unscientific, and only a pseudoscience will accept them.

Literally no one said it does. OP didn't ask "is psychology knowledge?" He asked if it was science.

i have so much disdain for this tripfag desu

>mfw at all the retards in this thread

It all depends upon your method of Demarcation and Demarcation has been debated for centuries.

I myself do not agree with Methodological Monism.

Things that can't be replicated aren't taken any more seriously in Psychology than they are anywhere else.

Stop reading pop-psych trash articles and learn something.

[citation needed]

...

More than half of the results of psychology studies fail to be replicated. This field needs to be purged or abandoned.

>more than half
where are you getting this statistic and what does studies have to do with the field itself? People don't write books and develop theories based on single studies, or rather, the field doesn't take the findings of such studies seriously

Don't you also have to replicate the replicated study?

And doesn't this lead to a regression problem ad infinitum?

Checkmate STEMtard

All Works I know use statistical based evidence.

It's more related to astrology than science.

It was invented by a Jew.

Enough said.

/thread.

That's pyschoanalysis, brainlet.

Modern day psychology is fathered by Western European Germans and Frenchies.

From Nature:
nature.com/news/first-results-from-psychology-s-largest-reproducibility-test-1.17433?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Just a couple of replications should suffice. You just want to unmask frauds and cooks with replications in order to clea the field.

>Just a couple of replications should suffice

That doesn't answer the question.

How do you know the replicative studies are correct? You just run into the same problem with the original study because you have to then make sure that those replicated studied were correct.

It doesn't matter if you keep doing multiple replications and take an average, because there is no reason to believe a majority or average of those studies is sufficient or that a mathematical average can be extended from interpreted practice.

Do you understand, brainlet?

I'm tearing down your world view one second at a time.

Not that user, but I know the game you're trying to play, and I have played it myself multiple times. You can't trick the master trickster. That user should stop responding to you at this moment, unless he wants to play rat and mouse with someone who hasn't the slightest interest in reaching the truth of the matter.

>Not that user, but I know the game you're trying to play, and I have played it myself multiple times. You can't trick the master trickster. That user should stop responding to you at this moment, unless he wants to play rat and mouse with someone who hasn't the slightest interest in reaching the truth of the matter.

Not a response.

There is no such thing as methodological monism and I will eradicate all brainlets that attempt to claim such a thing exists.

A couple of replications greatly increase the probability that a researcher is generating bogus results. The point is that replicated studies conducted by different people serve as a check in place. No replications mean that frauds are given free reign. Ultimately, it all boils down to odds. Absolute certainty may not be attainable, but a reasonable attempt should at least be conducted.

I wrote out a whole reply to this but fucking lost it when I clicked reload, christ. Sorry, friend. We'll do this next time.

...

>first post best post

Sparta was shit

Someone needs to make a .gif where the brain tupla smothers Wojack, and takes over, as a warning for those guys over on /x.

It's more of a tool than a science

>More than half of the results of psychology studies fail to be replicated. This field needs to be purged or abandoned.
You show painful ignorance of what these results actually mean and how normal they are in relation to other fields.

I recommend looking up the same reproduction studies for medicine.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the significance of this study coming from WITHIN the field, rather than from the outside. This is actually a plus for psychology.

Does it matter? If psychology helps people live better lives isn't that the point? It's a soft science if anything because its hard to repeat experiments.

>If psychology helps people live better lives isn't that the point?
But it does the exact opposite. It ruins lives. It's a cancerous tumor on the ass of science, and needs to piss off.

>But it does the exact opposite. It ruins lives. It's a cancerous tumor on the ass of science, and needs to piss off.

So what would you suggest people with serious psychological problems do, then?

Anything but surrender their lives to the mental health industry (and I must emphasize *industry*) so they can make things worse for their own personal profit. Seriously, fuck this racket.

Ok, so you suggest nothing.

Those are some sound citations and credentials you brought up there.

I suggest they help themselves. If they can't, then no snake oil salesman could help them even if they wanted to (which, FYI, they don't).

you are not a smart kid
infact you are 99% retarded

As someone who basically got a brand new life thanks to psychiatric mediation: go fuck yourself.

That's psychiatry you're thinking of. Psychology is just therapy.

t.scientologist

t. Dr. Oz fan

two can play at this game.

>popperian falsifiability

lmao science is never carried out like that

"lmao" is not an argument

To psychology apologists, it is!

>science
>a series of disciplines stretching back thousands of years
>falsifiability
>a methodological concept from the 20th century

You're a moron.

Sounds like you need help.

No, not really. Even Freud himself admitted that it was a sort of temporal bridge, a way to try and understand behavior through analogies and abstract, sometimes philosophical, concepts until eventually the study of the brain would take its place. That was in his early days of psychoanalysis, before he went full mystical in his methods and models and started regarding psychology as its own thing, which I believe was a mistake. Luckily today's psychologists are much more rational in their approach but they too have dropped the idea that psychology is just a temporal method we use because we're so desperate to understand our behavior and thoughts without having the means to study them in an empirical way yet.

*tips 99% of his fedoras*

...

Shhh... user, you ain't the only one who had catastrophic experiences with Psychologists and psychiatrists. No tears, user, only dreams.

With charlatans like Stapel and Smeesters it was absolutely necessary for the field of psychology itself to conduct reproductions to salvage whatever credibility was left. There was already pressure from outside psychology to set the mess right. Claims that reproductions derived from wihtin the field are bogus. To say that this is a plus for psychology demonstrates how pathetic the state it is in truly is.

Failure to replicate should never be tolerated; you would open the doors for fraud and fake studies.

The replication crisis in medicine seems less severe and mostly restricted to cancer research. It appears to be on a lesser scale than psychology, particularly social psychology.

It matters when that help does not surpass placebo effect.

I am happy your life has imporved. Even though any pharmacologst can tell you that psyhciatric medicine is shooting in the dark.

>Luckily today's psychologists are much more rational in their approach

Phrases like this trigger me to no end. Why do you think modern psychologists "act more rationally"?

Watch that man's lectures and tell me yourself.
His discourse was informative for me and I could see it being very useful to someone suffering from a mental disorder.
He's not a 'change their brain chemistry with pills until they think they are better' type.

Falsifiability is filled with problems.

Read kuhn.

Im talking about the cognitive school mostly, which is all about using simple models and creating simple tools, collecting data of what worked on a patient or not and then using those tools on new cases. It has limited uses, the greatest example being phobias, but its way more reasonable than Freud and later Lacan's pseudo philosophy that sometimes bordered on mysticism and that led to psychoanalysts taking Freud's and Lacan's words as holy perfect scripture.

>I recommend looking up the same reproduction studies for medicine.

Not even remotely the same. Social psychology is literally in disarray, plenty of holy cows under threat (ego depletion, stereotype threat and so on). Medicine, it's not like we found out something like cisplatin or NSAIDs don't work.

>Social psychology is literally in disarray
Because it tried to replace religion with therapy and drugs.

...what?
What do drugs and therapy have to do with social psychology?

The modern answer to psychological problems is psychiatry.

That has nothing to do with social psychology.

A field of science implies a field where you use the scientific method to explain why x happens. Scientific method starts with a falsifiable hypothesis of explaining why x happens.

If you want to talk about something unfalsifiable, fine, but don't call it science.

Sorta a lot of it is just wishful thinking
I don't consider it a pseudo science but it's definitely not a pure science and retards think that because a couple of psychologists saying that there are more than 2 genders it suddenly comfirms their retardedness

NOTHING ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY IS ABOUT OBJECTIVE TRUTH

take your pills faggot, you get paranoid without them.

replication fetish, the thread.

some of the subdisciplines within under psychology umbrella are rigorously scientific, some are not, and most that are not do not profess to be rigorously scientific. The level of autism that flares up whenever psychology is brought up is disgusting, but then again no one on Veeky Forums ever seems to really know what they are talking about.

Truth is a psychological concept.

Psyhcology is presented as real, unadulterated science. From this it follows that it rigorously adheres to the empirical method of science. When a replication crisis emerges, such criticism is valid.

Peterson seems to be trying to tie psychology to philosophy, neither of which are exact sciences.

The problems arise when people forget they are not exact sciences and more the prevailing ideas of the day vs say the laws of physics.

It's closer to a real science than other social sciences

fpbp

Most of what passed for science thousands of years ago would not be considered science by any modern standard.

>Science and art
>medicine
>woodworking
Medicine is literally just science and woodworking is literally art