Salamander
mod
admin
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
8M

I have created a new community /c/mander, maybe that would be appropriate for questions like this one.

I am using the standard terminology commonly used by science philosophers. The natural sciences is the branch that focuses on life and physical sciences, its main sub-branches are chemistry, astronomy, earth science, physics, and biology. The terminology of “natural science” is used for these because these are the topics that those who called themselves “natural philosophers” would think and write about before the scientific method became established. The “unnatural” sciences would then be the formal sciences (math, statistics, computer science), the social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics), the applied sciences (engineering and medicine), and other interdisciplinary sciences. Of course, there is nothing unnatural about them!

There are always disagreements about terminology. Some argue that the formal sciences should not be called a science at all. Others divide the sciences into “hard” and “soft”. I can also change the description to include all science in general.

Psychology in particular is most definitely not a science at all. That’s why it ends in -ology! (Only half joking)

Salamander
mod
admin
link
fedilink
16M

But then we lose biology, geology, paleontology, and many others!!

Psychology had a rough start with its many un-falsifiable theories, but I think that a lot of the research in the field does fit within the scope of what is generally understood as “science” today!

😆 Yeah I guess on the first part. But I maintain that psychology is only roughly 10% science. The rest is dogma, doctrine, and religion.

Just look at how they handle neurodiversity for example.

Salamander
mod
admin
link
fedilink
16M

I think that some traits such as addiction and depression have very strong manifestations, allowing them to be reliably identified, and they are prevalent enough in the population, allowing one to design studies with large sample sizes. I do not follow the developments in the field, but I want to think that some people tackling these conditions know what they are doing!

Just look at how they handle neurodiversity for example.

Ah, you are referring to clinical psychologists? I agree that clinical psychologists are not generally trained as scientists, and if one picks a psychologist to visit at random it is possible that they will be exposed to some “experimental” technique and ideas that are not particularly scientific.

@ilia
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

Introductions
!main

    The Default Community

    • 0 users online
    • 1 user / day
    • 1 user / week
    • 1 user / month
    • 4 users / 6 months
    • 143 subscribers
    • 1 Post
    • 2 Comments
    • Modlog