1
8

[–] 2cents 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

"A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized."

This is the only reference I saw pointing to something that actually has to do with how the brain works without having a biased outcome suggested to it. and it was only "widely criticized", not retracted due to falsified data. Shows how skewed these fields indeed are - the fields that haven't been studied are the ones that are shunned because they haven't been studied, and the fields that are circlejerked into oblivion are favored because of their circular and jerky background, causing little upset in the scientific community because it's so familiar to everyone.

Sorry for the sassy tone, it's a bad morning for me. I was under the impression the psychology was the study of how the mind works, which includes behavior, so in my opinion it is absolutely a science. Sociology is basically an entirely new field devoted to half of psychology, so in my opinion it's not really necessary, though I'm hardly one to judge as I only work in IT and don't know the first thing about either field except that I have ADHD because of chemical imbalances and other science.

2
4

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Psychiatry and psychology are not the same fields, though related.

Psychology is a pseudo science that consistently falls short of reproducing the results of studies that are necessary and required under the scientific method.

1
4

[–] Greyseeker 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Agreed, studying psychology at the moment the science is not verifiable by any means, but those who hold it dear want it to be. Psychology needs to be focused on applying the science, a step up from counselling and leaving the actually science to accurate repeatable measure science's like psychiatry, neuroscience, etc.

0
2

[–] 2cents 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Regarding psychology, do you think that the issue is with the field or with the methods used? Considering humans are so diverse as-is, and given that we know so little about the brain, do you think tests of a different nature entirely might yield more conclusive or useful results?

6
8

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 6 points 8 points (+14|-6) ago 

The findings in these studies of studies reported in the NY Times should not be surprising.

Psychology and Sociology are not sciences, though they pretend to be.

1
3

[–] bakcha 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Whee, The Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing!

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect"

1
5

[–] dcro142 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Not sure if you did it on purpose but If you get rid of the quotation marks around the address, then it will be automatically turned into a hyperlink and will be far more accessible.

Ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Edit: Well...shit.

12
2

[–] avgwhtguy1 12 points 2 points (+14|-12) ago 

you are as dumb as the headline.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

4
4

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

"Don't stop believing. Yeah, hold onto that feeling, yeah. Keep on taking that midnight train to anywhere."

0
0

[–] doctor_cucumber 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Found the psychology major

0
0

[–] Rostin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that almost half of the studies were reproduced successfully. That's not too shabby, in my opinion. I remember reading articles last year about an attempt to reproduce a similar number of high impact medical studies. If I remember correctly, the researchers were able to reproduce fewer than a quarter successfully.

It's possible that you're right, and the reason so "few" studies in sociology and psychology are reproducible is that they are not sciences.

It's also possible that a less inflammatory but still more troubling explanation exists: Due to cultural and professional pressures faced by scientists and the fact that science itself is growing ever more complex and interdisciplinary, all sciences have a reproducibility problem that is only now being revealed. These studies are just the tip of the iceberg, and we are in for some shocks regarding the more quantitative sciences.

0
0

[–] TheRedKing 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Low hanging bait is low hanging.

It is a science a lot of people in the field have trouble being objective about due to the nature of the testing. It is also a science that is highly scrutinized because the masses can't accept the mind is so simple there is a science out there devoted to showing just how easy it is to understand.

1
6

[–] Genemaster 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Thank you v/science! Indeed psychology is not and has never been science. Psychologist should be banned from being involved in psychiatric research as they are largely responsible for the terrible state of psychiatry research: Psychiatry’s Guide Is Out of Touch With Science

0
2

[–] Drakinor 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

As someone who, while not as learned on these as psychologists and sociologists, whose still had to study these fields more than the average person I would agree. They are helpful tools, don't get me wrong, but its nothing like physics, geology, etc where we can easily replicate experiment results. The problem with psychology and sociology is that there is no way to really pull out variables and limit external factors. You can take 100 people who are all white, affluent, from New York, with PhD's in in the same field and do a study on them and you will find that your test pool is still extremely varied. They are helpful as a tool to better understand humanity and behavior, but we must realize they are not hard sciences and there are almost no hard facts in psychology and sociology.

1
1

[–] Caboose_Calloway 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Newton used to believe in alchemy and transmutation. This is simply because the laws that modern chemistry was based on weren't invented yet. Astrology used to be one of the main studies of the natural philosophers of the time until the laws of orbital laws were discovered. These were the best science of the day until better explanations were discovered.

Does that mean Psychology and Sociology are not sciences? Not really. It only means that the laws governing them are not as firm as we'd like them to be. People are working on it.

0
0

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well said. But what you describe supports the view that the fields of psychology and sociology are handmaidens to science, but not science themselves.

0
1

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No, I'm trying to say that we can't claim either way. People are doing research and applying scientific method in search of laws that govern those sciences. In time it may transpire that the scientific method was fundamentally insufficient for penetrating human cognition, just like the scholastic method of the renaissance was fundamentally insufficient for understanding the universe we live in.

We are not equipped to make that judgment, partly because of our limited knowledge, partly because of our skewed perspective. This may sound daft if you are used to hearing that science is certain and firmly established. In fact science is not at all certain and nowhere near firmly established.

To gain some perspective I can recommend History of Science Professor Lawrence M. Principe's lectures on the matter. They are long but quite lightweight and fun. Should be available for download here and there.

1
-1

[–] Agedwithaview 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Is this why when I was in college, the first year psych majors were the most fun to party with?

5
-4