for biology it's evolution
for psychology it's fight, flight, food and FUCK, that or Oedipus complex
Psychology
Anthony Bennett
Joseph Morris
>wild conjectures are not theories
Wild conjectures? Are you implying that environment or genetics can't influence a person? Or that there is not unconscious processing in the Human mind? Because other fields greatly depends on those ideals as well.
>I want to see this study because I'm skeptical that it has the same degree of reproducibility as a physics experiment
You comprehended that my entire point was that the study itself was flawed and used incorrect statistics correct? Regardless here
science.sciencemag.org
Also, psycics is an entirely different field with a hell of a lot less complex outside factors to deal with. Why must it reproduce results at the same rate? Genetic studies sure as hell don't replicate that well yet no one questions it as a science. It seems like a hell of a double standard.
Mason Powell
What to do you guys think of Ecological psychology? Is it a Science?
Levi Cruz
>Why must it reproduce results at the same rate?
because reproducibility is a key aspect of experiments in natural sciences.
>Genetic studies sure as hell don't replicate that well yet no one questions it as a science
they can probably predict the error between studies to a very high degree
>Also, physics is an entirely different field with a hell of a lot less complex outside factors to deal with.
see, you understand! this is precisely why social "sciences" are much weaker at making predictions and are thus not considered hard sciences.
>Why must it reproduce results at the same rate?
because you're trying to compare psychology to hard sciences, they need to have the same level of predictive power.
neuroscience and a better understanding of the brain are the only things that will elevate psychology to that level.
Connor Ross
Of course it's a science, just not a very rigorous one overall. Different fields of research within psychology vary in how rigorous they are however, just like in every science.
Thing is, when people say "science", what they really mean is "serious science" which is often associated with the natural sciences in the minds of most people.
>Genetic studies sure as hell don't replicate that well
source?
Josiah Richardson
If predictive power and reproducible results, rather than adherence to some kind of methodology, is what makes a field scientific, then would AI be considered a science?
Would computer scientists be accorded the same status as physicists then?
Ethan Murphy
isn't CS just applied math? isn't AI just applied CS and engineering? seems more interdisciplinary to me
Jonathan Rogers
>they can probably predict the error between studies to a very high degree
Based on what? I've certainly never heard of such a thing in the field. You're avoiding the point they still do not meet your criteria that you're setting for psychology.
And you're still saying psychology is weaker on making predictions but based on what as well? The only large study as a just linked found the replication to be pretty much as high as you could ask for.
>source
Besides just dealing with genetic studies on a daily basis here
academic.oup.com
But to be fair I haven't looked at all the studies it lists and as it also lists the debunked psychology studies it could be flawed. But that's the best I can do with my limited free time atm.
Easton Russell
Psychology has literally all of those things. What year do you live in?
Samuel Reed
You people don't get it. This discussion is so definitely predicated on your personal philosophical beliefs that are a priori to this discussion. I believe in free will. Thus there is subjectivity in human subjects. There is no subjectivity in an electron. That's the difference. If you think of everyone as a bunch of predetermined circuit boards then both psych and physics are sciences but who cares you're life is meaningless