Biochemistry/biology/psychology/ neuroscience

>biochemistry/biology/psychology/ neuroscience
>a science
>pick one

>only disciplines based in math, formal logic and subsequent proofs are sciences

>falsifiability is a meme; fuck Popper

>philosophy BTFO

Right, so falsifiability is a meme, only disciplines based in math, formal logic and subsequent proofs are sciences and philosophy can BTFO?

Well, if it’s not falsifiable and relies on mathematical proofs then it is not science; it’s philosophy.

Therefore, those on this board who reject the importance of falsifiability and adulate formal logic instead, are advocates of unscientific philosophy.

So, hard science shit posters BTFO based on your own fucking logic.

Other urls found in this thread:

news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

fuck off philosotard

Math is a member of the philosophy set: M ∈ P

If something is falsifiable then it is scientific: F ⊃ S

If something is not falsifiable then it is unscientific: ~ F ⊃ ~S

If something is mathematical and falsifiable then it is scientific: (M · F) ⊃ S

If something is mathematical but unfalsifiable then it is unscientific: (M · ~F) ⊃ ~S

The perfect summary

>philosotard

I'm arguing against unscientific philosphy being passed off as science.

I'm arguing in favour of science.

How dense are you?

sorry I saw the word "philosophy" and flew off the handle

That's ok; it happens.

Yes.

biochemistry is pretty much the same thing as chemistry, just with proteins and gene sequences. It's all good.

Same with genetics from biology, but anything else is shit tier.

>reading comprehension

>falsifiability is a meme; fuck Popper

brainlet misfired LUL

philosotard detected
>>

>muh >>/\V/xXXxxxx/ meme
LUL stay mad, brainlet xD

spiritualism is NOT science

Google is correct:
"Psychology is not a science. It's a subject area. And you can either study it scientifically or non-scientifically."

Also about a study from last year which made waves of shitposting on Veeky Forums:

>In an attempt to determine the “replicability” of psychological science, a consortium of 270 scientists known as the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to reproduce the results of 100 published studies. More than half of them failed, creating sensational headlines worldwide about the “replication crisis” in psychology.
..
>Finally, the OSC used a “low-powered” design. When the four researchers applied this design to a published data set that was known to have a high replication rate, it too showed a low replication rate, suggesting that the OSC’s design was destined from the start to underestimate the replicability of psychological science.

Pretty interesting read:

news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/

I'm refuting that very sentiment.

user, read the thread:

>I'm arguing against unscientific philosophy being passed off as science.

This entire thread is dedicated to the promotion of science over unfalsifiable philosophy.

This is just golden.

user, your source contradicts your statements.

Even the url alone contradicts your statements:

>study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong

Let’s look at what the article went on to say, after your snipets:

>But an in-depth examination of the data by Daniel Gilbert, the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard, Gary King, the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, Stephen Pettigrew, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Government at Harvard, and Timothy Wilson, the Sherrell J. Aston Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, has revealed that the OSC made some serious mistakes that make its pessimistic conclusion completely unwarranted.

>The methods of many of the replication studies turn out to be remarkably different from the originals and, according to the four researchers, these “infidelities” had two important consequences.

>First, the methods introduced statistical error into the data, which led the OSC to significantly underestimate how many of their replications should have failed by chance alone. When this error is taken into account, the number of failures in their data is no greater than one would expect if all 100 of the original findings had been true.

>Second, Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson discovered that the low-fidelity studies were four times more likely to fail than were the high-fidelity studies, suggesting that when replicators strayed from the original methods of conducting research, they caused their own studies to fail.

Wow, user; not only can you not read the thread, but apparently you can't even read your own sources.

>news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/
>the OSC made some serious mistakes that make its pessimistic conclusion completely unwarranted.

read much, faggot?

>What is misconstrue.

You also had 0 arguments in your sentences.

It's like you're not even from this planet.

The link I provided it's a set of arguments against the study from last year which suggests that 85% of psychology experiments have no replicability.

Is it hard to understand that?

I replied to three people, which one were you?

I am not the user you replied to. I am an agent of chaos.

I am one of the anons, which you obviously did not understand.

>In an attempt to determine the “replicability” of psychological science, a consortium of 270 scientists known as the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to reproduce the results of 100 published studies. More than half of them failed, creating sensational headlines worldwide about the “replication crisis” in psychology.

>Finally, the OSC used a “low-powered” design. When the four researchers applied this design to a published data set that was known to have a high replication rate, it too showed a low replication rate, suggesting that the OSC’s design was destined from the start to underestimate the replicability of psychological science.

I see; you were setting up the history of the study and the shitposting on Veeky Forums.

My mistake.

>not only can you not read the thread, but apparently you can't even read your own sources.

Well now this is just golden.

Kek.

Apparently yes, but we don't.

Oh shi-

Yes, agreed.

I could say your post was a little ambiguous; however, the truth is I was too presumptuous.

I'm refuting that very sentiment.

user, read the thread:

(You)

>I'm arguing against unscientific philosophy being passed off as science.

This entire thread is dedicated to the promotion of science over unfalsifiable philosophy.

Statements retracted, user.

My apologies once again.

It's greentext from the article, I wrote nothing in my post except the first few lines.

Yes, understood.

No problem man, I didn't get angry or anything - I was expecting your to realize it anyway if I pointed it out.

...

Cool beans, bro.

I'd just woken up from a heat induced power nap so my brain wasn’t working properly.

It means you fucked up and entered in dream mode.

If you don't fall asleep in 10 - 15 minutes just fucking get up and do nothing instead of sleeping, still makes the brain restore the chemicals it needs.

Falsifiability is simply a shitty and outdated criterion. Deal with it and educate yourself, pop sci kid.

This is cringeworthy and wrong. Please keep your simpleminded misconceptions to yourself and stop spreading ignorance.

How can you have science without testability?

Not that user, but what's wrong with it?

>Falsifiability is simply a shitty and outdated criterion
why? how? are you sure you are not a "pop-sci kid"?

>Falsifiability is simply a shitty and outdated criterion

what's the criterion then?

I hope rejecting biology and biochemistry entails rejecting modern medicine.

nice same fag

I was quoting myself, in order to highlight a previous post to another user.

It would.

Medicine is a mess, due to approx 90% of studies being industry funded.

We can't even look at the methodology or stats analysis of most papers and have no idea how many negative studies have gone unpublished.

If you're even too dumb to duckduckgo criticisms against Popper's bullshit and to find the reasons why nobody in academia takes him seriously anymore, then I'm not gonna spoonfeed you. Perls before the swine.

So you are just talking bullshit. Thanks
I guess someone called you out on your bullshit "hypothesis" because it wasnt falsifiable and now you just claim it is an "outdated" criterion

Yeah I support man made global warming and some /pol/tard told me it's not falsifiable.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to

You can believe whatever you want. In the scientific community things have to be AT LEAST falsifiable

Fuck you. Man made global warming is scientific. Falsifiability is not necessary.

Define scientific.

Do it now.

> Man made global warming is scientific
yeah, manmade global warming is what caused ice age to end....wait...

Plase explain what is wrong with it.

>Falsifiability is not necessary.
it is. At least if you want people to take your ideas seriously
what are you even on about? nobody is talking about the ice age. Are you implying that the fact that the climate is always changing means, that humans cant possibly have an effect on it?

This is absolutely correct; ignore this user.

This is absolutely wrong; ignore this user.

No reason provided; statements disregarded.

No reason provided; statements disregarded.

jesus christ, can somebody please tell me what's wrong with this ?

The first three sentences are wrong. Using pseudo-formal notation doesn't hide this fact. Just like writing "unicorns exist" with an existential quantifier doesn't make it less wrong.

How are they wrong?

Please expand on this; I am genuinely interested, user.

The first sentence is incorrect.

I'd change this to:

Math is a tool used by humans, in order to expatiate our powers of logical reasoning.

If something is falsifiable then it is scientific: F ⊃ S

If something is not falsifiable then it is unscientific: ~ F ⊃ ~S

If something is mathematical and falsifiable then it is scientific: (M · F) ⊃ S

If something is mathematical but unfalsifiable then it is unscientific: (M · ~F) ⊃ ~S

>If something is falsifiable then it is scientific
What do you even mean by "it is scientific"?
falsifiability is a criterion for hypothesis in the scientific context. It alone doesnt make something a proper hypothesis

Ok so which one is more scientific? Computer science or biology?

:^)

Philosophy, psychology, psychiatry. Great fields. I wouldn't argue they're necessarily science but philosophy is, in my mind, equal to science in how interesting it can be. Meanwhile psychology and psychiatry, while valid medical professions, are hard to reproduce and rely on some shreds of subjectivity. As a result, you COULD argue they're not science. Personally, I wouldn't, because it's semantics to argue if a field rooted naturally in the sciences is a science.

However, you could also hypothesize that philosophy, too is a science. Not one in the most natural of senses, but it is a study and observation of current structures and ways of thinking and believing. Put simply, philosophy is the science of science and modern thought (this can arguably be labelled epistemology) external to thought structures examined in psychology. Because while psychology examines disorder, philosophy explains why disorder occurs from less of a medical perspective and more an introspective one.

Again, though. They're not easily reproducible and rely on subjectivity. Specifically, I'm talking about psychology and psychiatry because philosophy doesn't even meet the bare minimum of subjectivity.

Anyway, final point: if you're truly taking opinions on what is and what isn't a science from Veeky Forums, and taking it to heart, you're probably not ready for the sciences anyway.

First of all, math and philosophy are not sets, let alone math being a subset or even an element of philosophy. Secondly, falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific". Please read about the refutations of Popper's nonsense.

>are hard to reproduce and rely on some shreds of subjectivity.
> They're not easily reproducible and rely on subjectivity
[citation needed]

>However, you could also hypothesize that philosophy, too is a science.

Unfalsifiable = not science.

>if you're truly taking opinions on what is and what isn't a science from Veeky Forums

I'm not; I'm attempting to inject some reason into this shithole.

>Secondly, falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific".

Well then, how do you define science?

>Please read about the refutations of Popper's nonsense.

Ok, will do.

>[citation needed]
Anyone with a shred of knowledge in psychiatry and psychology, even at the highschool level, should know that the unconscious is immeasurable and attempts to measure it in the most literal sense are not psychology, but neuroscience. It's so basic knowledge that you can just google it yourself (I'm not at home and will cite it when I am, I promise -- and if I can't find anything I admit defeat).
>I'm attempting to inject some reason into this shithole.
Good luck.

You have no idea what philosophy is.

IF SOMETHING IS NOT TESTABLE THEN IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Agree?

You have no idea what philosophy is

>Please read about the refutations of Popper's nonsense.

There isn't a single valid one.

If you disagree, please provide one.

Good point, I actually don't. My knowledge of philosophy is limited to postmodernists.

From what I know, philosophy is the study of why it happens, how it happens, and what will happen, without as much scientific involvement as other (arguably, and I'm not a student of physics) predictive fields like physics.

>falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific"

>the study of why it happens, how it happens, and what will happen

No, that's science.

Philosophy is based on informal logical hypotheses that can't be tested.

Therefore, it is useless.

Nobody knows what philosophy is. We cannot know nuffin.

>Therefore, it is useless

It changed my fucking life tho.

How?

Please tell me.

>My knowledge of philosophy is limited to postmodernists.

Your ignorance of science is showing. I'm not even talking about fringe science.

Please state one scientific theory that is unfalsifiable.

Nobody has managed to do this throughout this entire thread.

>Falsifiability is a meme

No it isn't.

Evolution. Someone else already mentioned "man made" climate change as well.

Evolution is entirely falsifiable and has an abundance of evidence supporting it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

>If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

>If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

>If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

>If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

>If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

You're an idiot, user.

>Evolution is entirely falsifiable
Macroevolution isn't, because it makes no predictions. It is merely a theory about the past. Your claim is like saying history is falsifiable.

>and has an abundance of evidence supporting it.
I never doubted this.

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

>Macroevolution

Ok, creationist detected.

>>If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
Mutations have been observed many times, so this clearly could not be shown.

>>If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
This has also been observed already.

>>If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
This has also been observed.

>>If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
Again observed.

>>If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
Observed.

I don't think you understand what falsifiability means.
1. "If all our evidence we already collected in the past magically vanished" is not a falsification. It's not even possible.
2. Even if it was possible, then it wouldn't be a falsification because falsification means a contradiction with the theory's predicitons. Lack of evidence is not a contradiction.

So what? Somehow they must have evolved earlier. We'd find an explanation within the framework of evolution.

Strawman detected.

> has an abundance of evidence supporting it
No there isn't. There's only bacteria mutating their cell walls and thats it, thats the only demonstrable measurable evidence you have in favor of evolution and its pretty flimsy.

I believe in evolution but get your facts straight. There is no abundance of evidence for evolution. Fossils are entirely up to interpretation and has tons of missing links wheres over 90% of the transition fossils are nowhere to be found. This is why people like Dawkins have a hard time trying to support evolution when creationists ask for evidence(even though they don't bother showing theirs)

If you studied evolution beyond high school level, there's certainly more evidence than your cell wall example.

Show me the observable and testable evidence you have for evolution.

I'm planning on becoming an Applied Mathematician in dynamical systems or something and I'd never call myself a scientist. I know I'm not a scientist nor do I care if I am. I've met professors and people, however, who have studied Mathematics and identify as scientists and I just find that to be almost incorrect.

You can start from wikipedia article "Experimental evolution". Michael R. Rose's research group has done some nice work.

I'm leaving Veeky Forums.

Goodbye and good luck everyone.

>Evolution.
A real case of irreducible complexity would falsify it.

>missing links

You have no real understanding of evolution.

Nope. We'd just assume that it evolved.

yes you do
>falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific"

both falsifiable

If you still believe in Popperian falsificationism, then you're simply ignorant. This shit has been obsolete for more than 50 years now.

wrong, think again