Do you guys consider psychology a real science?

They can't allow for falsificationism.
They have to project and then confabulate and circle in confirmation bias.
That's 99% of what the field is.
If you forced them to make predictions and admit when they're wrong, then they'd all kill themselves.
It's a field solely populated by irrational narcissists that equate flawed self-serving intuition with truth... and the "science" they use just helps them prove it.
As long as they're not required to test or discover scientific laws, it will never be a science.
Never.
It's related more so to cults than to science.

They completely reject BOTH Positivism (prediction testing) and Falsificationism (prediction testing and data analysis).
It's inherently anti-empirical, therefore anti-science... not even "soft" science.
It never was.
Social "sciences" have an intent, and it's not to discover truth, it's to justify beliefs.
It's a religion and only a religion.

Damn my nigga going hard in the paint right now. Psychbabbys where you at??

what about in terms of medication research and psychological state ?

if a higher proportion of people with 'x' mental illness 'do better' psychologically on 'y' medication, with a high enough sample size, won't means testing show that 'y' medication is better than 'z' ?

how is that not science ? isn't it basically discovering 'more' or 'less' true things about the biology of our own species, as opposed to other species ?

If not, someone please explain the difference to me

From biofag

Roasted: the post

/pol/ reads a lot, mainly news, but they only discuss events.
It's usual there to find people rejecting college education because they think their truth is absolute. It's fun to discuss with them but they can be wrong often.

>how is that not science?

Because what you have described is not psychology. You could replace 'mental illness' with any given biological variable and deduce a conclusion on health aspects such as tolerance or mental state. This is pharmaceutical testing at a minimum.

Psychology, universally, attempts to establish fundamental basis by which humans develop certain psychological climates with respect to cognition and behaviour - which can range from: 'Daddy didn't compliment me enough when I was little' to biological pre-determinism.

>Soft Science relies on Projection, Circular Logic, Confirmation Bias, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, Psychological Effects (ironically) and Flawed Heuristic Methods.

Ah damn, then we can all agree that biology is a hard science?

Because circular conjecture is fallacious and sophist not science.
Do you not understand the concept of the "post hoc ergo prompter hoc" fallacy, placebo effects, circular reporting, data dredging, etc?

Most Biology and Neurology is Science, but when it comes down to Psychiatry, they don't test, they make claims and adamantly fight against the concept of testing and having to prove their claims.

Sidenote: Sedatives and Stimulants don't balance anything, they distract from functioning.

Also: Argument from Single Cause is also a fallacy. In fact there are loads of fallacies associated with "this therefore that" reasoning.

80% of people diagnosed "ill" aren't even ill, diseased or psychotic.
They're complaining or people are complaining about their lack of conformity or submission.

Read more.

No, not at all. A real science can have test results performed around the world or anywhere in the universe and have the same exact results every time. Psychology can't even do that between 2 people.

No.
nature.com/news/first-results-from-psychology-s-largest-reproducibility-test-1.17433?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
Psychology as a science is simply not working as a scientific field should. If replication fails to reproduce the results most of the time, it is clear that psychology is failing as a science.

Maybe more so now because how far data science has come. There is probably so much data on psychology right now out there in facebook and google only being used for advert purposes just waiting to be analyzed. Things like the OkCupid data are just a start in this trend I could imagine.

>pretending this problem is localized to pscyhology
>pretending it's a real problem

youtube.com/watch?v=j7K3s_vi_1Y

youtube.com/watch?v=VcgO2v3JjCU

p-hacking is the real problem.

>but when it comes down to Psychiatry, they don't test,

I'm afraid you actually believe this.

No. Out of the social sciences I think it's only Microeconomics that has the same repeatability as STEM.

just to add, iirc it has a higher repeatability than Biology

Of course. Anyone who says otherwise is either dumb or baiting.

Radical behaviorism is science in any definition of science.

Yes, and perhaps neuroscience but we know just so little about the brain.

It's under as arts at my college. Associate of arts is what psychology is under at Red Rocks community college

kek

My little brother is a psych major who is doing exactly this, creating spreadsheets of test subject responses to changes in medication regimes, and means testing between medications, + interpretation = publication

I can see how it might not be considered a hard science, but it is a pretty respectable sub-set of a shitty field imo.

Yes, the majority of biology is hard science. Though some evolutionary hypotheses are not testable in any rigorous sense so the "just so stories " of evobio fall under softer science in my opinion.

using synapomorphies perhaps not, but now we use gene sequencing - basically destroyed alot of peoples lifes work, and yes they were cool with it; because science.

I think that could be a good rule of thumb, as a metric; 'if the majority of your life work is proven unequivocally to be incorrect, will you be mad?'

if the answer is no, you're probably involved in a hard science.

pic related

/pol/ only hates psychology unless they are talking about IQ and how dumb niggers are, then psychology is the most rigorous thing ever.

>When you have yet to obtained sufficient information about a field it stops being science

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm not saying the cladistics portion of evobio is soft science. I'm saying the 'why did altruism evolve?' part of evobio is soft science.

>doesn't know about positivist schools of psychology

>all psychology is the same

> Do you guys consider psychology a real science?

Only in classified circles.

The shit they teach you is wrong on purpose.

Anyone got the source ?

sounds like /phil/ to me

soft science confirmed

Here you go champ

I don't, or at least people have to admit that it is far off from anything like math, physics, or chemistry. I also hate the pretentious "I can see into ur hed u only disagree with mee becuz u r insecure" types.

>posting that ugly whore

pol hates sociology

source?

No, but it is certainly very useful.

No. And while a lot of psychology ought to be questioned, the fact that it isn't a science necessarily doesn't make it useless

because it doesn't tie in together well with their agenda

What is science?