Psychology

>tfw psychologist
>tfw discussion during first day of Research Methods regarding how we are a science because we use the Scientific Method
>tfw understanding that your field, like any proper science, is based upon empiricism
>tfw starting grad program in experimental psych so I can become a worthy researcher
>mfw Veeky Forums tells me that my field isn't actually a science and holds no weight
Well shoot.

Meh, depends on perspective. I tend to agree with the notion that philosophy is relatively obsolete when it comes to scientific matter but there are still many interesting things discussed in the subject. And historical philosophy is interesting and often times very funny. That being said, History is considered to be a "humanity" and historians for the most part still try to maintain proper academic standards of rigor and intellectual honesty. Even anthropology tries to be fairly empirical though there are many exceptions. Sociology is the real cancer. A bundle of ideologies masquerading as a science.

I don't blame psychology I blame psychologists. Many are degrading the subject into basically sociology through sloppy research and their desire to gain recognition through click-baity pop-psychology ideas. But mostly I think it's the psych students doing the discipline a disservice.

It's kind of like doctors. Being a physician is a noble and important profession. But almost every pre-med i've met in the last couple years is a ditzy whore who will never make it to medical school. It makes the discipline look bad.

I can certainly understand your perspective. Psychology--being an obscenely populated field of study--will undoubtedly produce bad apples and create a buzz of overall negative stigma, among many other things.

>historians for the most part still try to maintain proper academic standards of rigor and intellectual honesty.
History is practically official hearsay. Not to mention how involved politics are, reason why Orwell said he who controls the past controls the future. So they dug up some remains, that pot could've had 100s of viable stories but some historian decided on a whim that'll be the official one. Or politics were involved and that story best fits the narrative they want to teach. Recent history is too politically involved and distant has had too much time pass for us to have any real idea. I take history with a grain of salt.

So we are in agreement. (Not OP by the way)

Certainly. Wouldn't see why not.

It seems that science--like everything else--is becoming monetized and people nowadays go into higher education purely to make money as opposed to learning and improving the state of humanity as a civilization. (Of course, I understand that a job is a job and you have to put food on the table someway.)

Not a historian or even a non-science major, so I can;t give the best or most personal account of this. I understand your sentiment, but that is precisely why there is so much debate among historians. There are many historians who vehemently argue that claims should not be made past what is reasonably certain or at least most logical. And it should always be presented as "most plausible" rather than "probably true". Unfortunately that is not the type of history that gets the general populous excited, because most people are of average intelligence and love their click-bait. Squeaky-wheel gets the grease, basically. People pay more attention to the historical arguments that fit their narrative and ignore the intellectually honest ones who take a stance of plausibility and ambiguousness.

Economics is heavily empirical.

Science has been in a slow monetization process for a while but recently the shit has really been hitting the fan because of the way modern society is developing. It may be rather cliche, but I feel more envy for the marine biologist that drives a honda civic who absolutely loves what they do everyday than the economist who rides in a mercedes and has to see a therapist because they feel like something is missing in their life. Obviously a childish generalization but I hope my meaning is clear.

It is certainly an interesting time we are living in. Things only stand to get more interesting though.

I am slightly confused. Did I say anything to the contrary?

>Obviously a childish generalization but I hope my meaning is clear.
I get you. I follow the same belief(s) and would also choose the same path, if possible. Like myself, I know I won't make a lot of money but as long as I'm financially stable, I'll be content.

>Things only stand to get more interesting though.
Of course. Although it is too bad we were born too early to explore the stars.

>>Although it is too bad we were born too early to explore the stars.

Aside from my despair over mortality, this is the single greatest contributor to my personal depression. It was nice chatting to you. I'm still fairly drunk and the sun is coming out so I should probably get some sleep. Good luck in your pursuits. Improve the world or/and die trying.

Sure, pal. I woke up early somehow but I may lose sobriety soon while I continue to fill the void through interactive stimuli, or as the kids call it these days, "video games".

>Improve the world or/and die trying.
That's my plan. My life has been shit and I have nothing yet I still continue to place others before myself, for some arcane reason.

Agreed, and I probably should've mentioned I'm not a nonSTEM major either. That said I do spend a lot of my free time involved in politics as a centrist and it's really interesting to see how history textbooks will vary across the globe on so many incidents. It mimics religion almost with the various creation myths. So while there is debate it seems like watching a Christian and a Muslim quibble over whether or not to eat pork rather than ask if there is a god to appease in the first place. At least that's the impression I get.

And thank you for that pic, it's officially my new wallpaper.

My apologies. I was using the term "social sciences" in a more connotative sense rather than denotative. Economics is a worthy pursuit and I tend to view it as more of a mathematical/statistical discipline.

You're very welcome my anonymous compatriot. My girlfriend loves math and it is one of her favorite images. I've got full day that the sun is currently encroaching upon so I'm off for now. Good skill in your pursuits and exploits.

Psychology isn't bad per se, but many psychologists can't really be called scientists.

And for yours as well, friend.

We humans are sure strange creatures, aren't we? Take care.

Just curious, when was the last time you picked up a psych journal, as opposed to clicking a click-baity link? Ever consider that you're only exposed to those types of studies because you're a passive consumer of science?

the majority of psychologists are morons, and always have been. Just like most physiscists or mathematicians, engineers etc.
Especially with psychology, very few people are "getting it", and it's 100 times harder than STEM to tell which ones are good (for an outsider)

Psychology is a very real science and has grown and evolved massively over the past decades.

Because you're unable to understand and process high-level concepts involving human emotion doesn't mean psychology isn't real.