Psychology

>At least in molecular biology and medicine
>Physics has the laws and theories of classical mechanics
>>Now, comparing psychology to physics is comparing apples to oranges.
>This idiom never made sense. Why can't the two be compared?
>but it is a science without neither reductionist principles nor a guiding system

Maybe you?
>even biology

All of those are comparisons.

>It was an attempt to demonstrate what other fields have that psychology does not.
That is the point. They are not comparable because psychology does not have a known foundation that defines it unlike all the things you are comparing it to.

> comparison to another field by bringing up biology,
Which still isn't comparable because we know a fuckton about the basics of biology. We know what makes up enzymes or whatever and what the different parts do. We even know why those parts function the way they do because of chemistry.

Ill admit i dont have the best vocabulary, i dont go to college, or understand what you mean when you use certain terms, but you're the one who is a stuck up cunt, is genuinely bothered, and using catchy buzzwords.

You dont want people to understand what you mean, you just want them to agree. Thats not something i want to be any part of so i'm done.

>All of those are comparisons.
I never denied making comparisons. I even prefaced my comparisons with disclaimers in order to reinforce my point more effectively. Is making comparisons automatically fallacious? Of course not.

>That is the point. They are not comparable because psychology does not have a known foundation that defines it unlike all the things you are comparing it to.
>Which still isn't comparable because we know a fuckton about the basics of biology. We know what makes up enzymes or whatever and what the different parts do. We even know why those parts function the way they do because of chemistry.
WOW THAT IS EXACTLY MY FUCKING POINT YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER. And here you are having the nerve to criticize random shit while missing the purpose of it all, only to... listen I just don't have the patience for this shit. Learn to fucking read and argue.

>Ill admit i dont have the best vocabulary, i dont go to college, or understand what you mean when you use certain terms, but you're the one who is a stuck up cunt, is genuinely bothered, and using catchy buzzwords.
Dude, you're throwing out random fallacies that you don't even understand, and you didn't make a single attempt to understand what I was saying before trying to tell me off. That kind of ignorant and pathetic behavior genuinely bothers me, as it would for anybody interested in having a serious discussion.

>You dont want people to understand what you mean, you just want them to agree. Thats not something i want to be any part of so i'm done.
Fuck off you whiny cunt. Learn to read before you accuse people of "not making arguments".

Just look at him. His beard. His forehead. His nose. His pose. His cigarette. His clothes. I mean just fucking look at him.

That's a cigar.

not the guy you were responding to but i don't think that what you define as a science is what we should use as a measuring stick with which we measure the degree to which something is scientific. If a discipline was to use the scientific method to try to understand something i would say that it is then a science. Psychology uses experimentation that can be replicated and deduces using the scientific method just as any other science does, so why is it that it would not be considered a science like the others?
also, dont be so mean to the other guy, the foundation of thinking scientifically is that we are open to having our ideas challenged so if you intend to carry on to doing research in neurobiology id hope you wouldnt treat any critics as you did this user.

>not the guy you were responding to but i don't think that what you define as a science is what we should use as a measuring stick with which we measure the degree to which something is scientific. If a discipline was to use the scientific method to try to understand something i would say that it is then a science. Psychology uses experimentation that can be replicated and deduces using the scientific method just as any other science does, so why is it that it would not be considered a science like the others?
I think that, ideally, psychology could easily be a rigorous science that approaches the level of predictability and replicability as, let's say, biology. The problem is that discoveries aren't treated alone in a vacuum, they have to cohere with other "facts" or they risk being nigh useless after further examination. Either they're confirming the current metamodel or they're disproving it.

Unfortunately, psychology doesn't have a solid enough foundation to even begin talking about a holistic model of the mind, let alone comparing several options or having a predominant view to serve as the standard. For a science that requires intense systems thinking, it is a terrible flaw in imagination that limits the usefulness and validity of what comes out of psychological research.

>also, dont be so mean to the other guy, the foundation of thinking scientifically is that we are open to having our ideas challenged so if you intend to carry on to doing research in neurobiology id hope you wouldnt treat any critics as you did this user.
I don't treat my critics like him because most of my critics aren't aggressive knuckledragging morons who accuse me of "shit flinging behind other people's achievements" and claim that "I never made an argument", despite me writing several paragraphs explaining what I believed and why.

I don't suffer rude fools well, and I never understand why I'm the person criticized when I never start fights, only finish them.

You didn't finish that argument moron you just kept handwaving like you're still doing. You will always win in your echo chamber. It shows you are full of yourself.

>You didn't finish that argument moron you just kept handwaving like you're still doing. You will always win in your echo chamber. It shows you are full of yourself.
Because providing a rebuttal is a counterargument, right? It's clear as day to anybody who isn't indoctrinated stupid that psychology has severe foundational issues that handicap it from functioning like other sciences, even like its closest "structural" relative biology. Go be miserable somewhere else if you're just going to be a stuckup cunt instead of writing a proper response to the painful BTFO that you just received. And quit samefagging, too, it makes you look pathetic, especially after doing quite a lot of handwaving yourself to avoid addressing ways in which psychology strays from the scientific method.

There's no need for discussions on psychology to degenerate into personal attacks. Yesterday's debate was far more civil.

you're delusional bud