Is Psychology a Science?

[weemadando]

Political Science can also be a science... Depending on what branch of it you are in.

[RedImperator]

I've said now and then that if the psychologists ever got their acts together, history and political science could be made into hard sciences. All you need is a reliable mathmatical model of human behavior. That should be ready no later than April 18, 3009.

[lgot]

Dude, the Scietific Method is not the same as mathematic method. You do not need to transform in numbers what does not have a numeric representation and neither you have to put in numbers to sound scietific.
And please, there is no such thing as soft/hard science. It is a prejudice trying to mean that those who study without calculations do not have a hard work or deal with very difficult questions.

[RedImperator]

Dude, the Scietific Method is not the same as mathematic method. You do not need to transform in numbers what does not have a numeric representation and neither you have to put in numbers to sound scietific.
And please, there is no such thing as soft/hard science. It is a prejudice trying to mean that those who study without calculations do not have a hard work or deal with very difficult questions.

Try to refrain from lecturing me about the nature of the social sciences, okay? I already know the methodologies used in political science and history. That's why I've got an 11x16 piece of sheepskin hanging on my living room wall with my name and "Bachelor of the Arts" printed on it. I also know I didn't work anywhere near as hard for my degree as the guys with "Bachelor of Science" printed on theirs.

If you can't quantify the variables (human behavior, in this case) in some kind of objective, relevant manner, you can't make predictions or test theories, and if you can't make predictions and test theories, it's not a hard science. Deal with it. The scientific method can and should be applied to political science and history, but polisci, history, sociology, economics, and every other field of study that centers around human nature will not and cannot be true sciences until human behavior is quantifiable and measureable.

[Darth Wong]

Dude, the Scietific Method is not the same as mathematic method. You do not need to transform in numbers what does not have a numeric representation and neither you have to put in numbers to sound scietific.

It is not important to "sound scientific"; you are being guilty of a style over substance fallacy. It is important to be objective and rational, and that means quantitative analysis.

And please, there is no such thing as soft/hard science. It is a prejudice trying to mean that those who study without calculations do not have a hard work or deal with very difficult questions.

Care to back up this bullshit claim that there's no difference between real science and pseudoscience?

[lgot]

RedImperor:

I also know I didn't work anywhere near as hard for my degree as the guys with "Bachelor of Science" printed on theirs.

You should know then, that your personal experience is not a valid representant of everything.

If you can't quantify the variables (human behavior, in this case) in some kind of objective, relevant manner, you can't make predictions or test theories, and if you can't make predictions and test theories, it's not a hard science.

So, hard science is when you have to calculate, not when you have do all the job with a number of variations that can not be easily represented as mathematic model ? Not about all the hard work of the research that you can have in any field ? You really think, It was easy for exampe, To Adorno , study and come with his theory about Mass Comunication ? A Weekend work,he did as colected cards ?

Deal with it. The scientific method can and should be applied to political science and history, but polisci, history, sociology, economics, and every other field of study that centers around human nature will not and cannot be true sciences until human behavior is quantifiable and measureable

Just that the scietific method does not says "Put it in a mathematic model or it is not science". It does not ask that. Machiavelli did not put in mathematic models his politics theories -but he did the research, his theories are still tested until today. And for more amazing that can be, they are extremelly accurate.

Darth Wong:

It is not important to "sound scientific"; you are being guilty of a style over substance fallacy. It is important to be objective and rational, and that means quantitative analysis.

No, I am not being guilty of that. He is the one that claimed that Science can be only science if you can put in a mathematic model. I said exactly that this is no necessary.

Care to back up this bullshit claim that there's no difference between real science and pseudoscience?

As soon you care to show me where I said that.

[Durandal]

Dude, the Scietific Method is not the same as mathematic method. You do not need to transform in numbers what does not have a numeric representation and neither you have to put in numbers to sound scietific.

Bullshit. Numbers are truly objective. Human feelings are not. If I'm a psychologist conducting a study, and ask people if something makes them angry, how do I quantify anger? "More angry" and "somewhat angry" aren't good enough because "more" and "somewhat" are widely interpretable, just like "kinda fast" isn't good enough in physics.

There has to be an actual number behind something for it to be objective. That's why all of the predictions made by science use numbers. Making a prediction like, "50% of people won't like this" isn't objective. It cannot quantify the degree of dislike and relies on heavily subjective and easily influenced human behavior. Making a prediction like, "An object in free fall, in a frictionless environment, will accelerate toward the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 plus or minus 0.5 m/s^2" is objective and easily tested. Math is an indispensable part of science. Throwing around numbers doesn't make something scientific, but leaving any meaningful quantifications completely out doesn't, either.

And please, there is no such thing as soft/hard science. It is a prejudice trying to mean that those who study without calculations do not have a hard work or deal with very difficult questions.

Psychology majors study statistics, and they like to piss and moan about how difficult it is (I'd love to see them take multi-variable calculus). There are such things as hard sciences, whether you like it or not. They're called "physics," "chemistry" and "biology." Note the lack of psychology in that list. This isn't about discriminating against the poor psychology students (much as I like giving all those hot babes a hard time). It's about what is and isn't objective. Human feelings aren't objective or objectively quantifiable. They are subjective by nature.

Economics is about as close to a real science as a social science can get, because it deals with something that can be quantified: money. No sane person who wanted to classify psychology as a science would ever put it in the same league of accuracy, robustness and sheer success as the aforementioned hard sciences. Biology wasn't really a science until evolution was discovered. Up until then, it was glorified taxonomy. And no one would have imagined putting it in the same league as physics and chemistry until the genome was successfully decoded. That's why biologists were so ecstatic about it. They became one of the big boys. They'd contributed something huge, on the order of relativity.

[Darth Wong]

No, I am not being guilty of that. He is the one that claimed that Science can be only science if you can put in a mathematic model. I said exactly that this is no necessary.

You claimed that it is not necessary. We explained that it is, in fact, necessary for objectivity. If you can't measure it, you have no way of ascertaining accuracy. Without accurate reproducibility, you do not have the scientific method. You just have pseudoscientific bullshit.

Care to back up this bullshit claim that there's no difference between real science and pseudoscience?

As soon you care to show me where I said that.

The part where you claimed that science without numbers is no less valid than science with numbers, dumb-ass. Not my fault you don't recognize what pseudoscience is.

[lgot]

Bullshit. Numbers are truly objective. Human feelings are not.

Sorry Durandal. you are making mistake. Human Feelings are the object of study. They do not need to be objective. Your study needs.

Psychology majors study statistics, and they like to piss and moan about how difficult it is (I'd love to see them take multi-variable calculus).

Oh, yeah, Actually statistics are used by everyone. The "work with calculations" is a reference to physics, chemestry, etc.
But then again: I do not mind what they say and I know it was true. The students did that in my old class and back then , I found it stupidy because it was easy.

There are such things as hard sciences, whether you like it or not. They're called "physics," "chemistry" and "biology." Note the lack of psychology in that list.

Basead on calculation use or not, peope want to label soft was pseudo-science. This is ridiculous.

Human feelings aren't objective or objectively quantifiable. They are subjective by nature.

Durandal, the Scientific Method Must be able to study human feelings. They are part of human nature. The SM must study and be able to be the best explanation to all reality and all that happens in nature. The reason is again, the subject does not need to be objective. Only the study.

Economics is about as close to a real science as a social science can get, because it deals with something that can be quantified: money.

See if that is not prejudice. If you can not use calculations it is not real science.

No sane person who wanted to classify psychology as a science would ever put it in the same league of accuracy, robustness and sheer success as the aforementioned hard sciences.

I did not know there is a competition. But you are talking about a science that is about 100 years only of study. Tell me, since man started to study life or biology , they already come with the package ? Wait, until today , as is natural, they do not know everything.
I agree with you, but I would like to remember you to consider how young most of those sciencies actually are.

Biology wasn't really a science until evolution was discovered. Up until then, it was glorified taxonomy. And no one would have imagined putting it in the same league as physics and chemistry until the genome was successfully decoded.

Oh, really ? So Biology was not a science. Darwin, Linneus, Owen are just like any psycologist today ? Everything done before, using scietific method, was not science...
And no one dared to do that...Just when Darwin, the most influencial scietific mind of last 2 centuries, was buried, he was put in the same level as Newton because what he did was "soft" science. No one dared to put his Biology and himself in the level of Newton and Physics...

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. Numbers are truly objective. Human feelings are not.

Sorry Durandal. you are making mistake. Human Feelings are the object of study. They do not need to be objective. Your study needs.

They do if you want to make accurate theories. Without accuracy, you do not have solid science.

Basead on calculation use or not, peope want to label soft was pseudo-science. This is ridiculous.

Yet again, you spout your uninformed opinion without justifying it. I already explained that objectivity is necessary for accuracy, and accuracy is how we determine that one theory is better than another. That is the crux of the scientific method, and you are ignoring it.

Durandal, the Scientific Method Must be able to study human feelings. They are part of human nature. The SM must study and be able to be the best explanation to all reality and all that happens in nature. The reason is again, the subject does not need to be objective. Only the study.

The study cannot be objective if there is no way of accurately assessing the parameters under analysis, dumb-ass.

Economics is about as close to a real science as a social science can get, because it deals with something that can be quantified: money.

See if that is not prejudice. If you can not use calculations it is not real science.

You can't just wave your hand, say the magic word "prejudice" and eliminate criticism, asshole. You are ignoring clearly stated reasons for the necessity of quantifiable data.

I did not know there is a competition. But you are talking about a science that is about 100 years only of study. Tell me, since man started to study life or biology , they already come with the package ? Wait, until today , as is natural, they do not know everything.

I agree with you, but I would like to remember you to consider how young most of those sciencies actually are.

Irrelevant. The use of the method does not depend on the age or maturity of the field.

Biology wasn't really a science until evolution was discovered. Up until then, it was glorified taxonomy. And no one would have imagined putting it in the same league as physics and chemistry until the genome was successfully decoded.

Oh, really ? So Biology was not a science. Darwin, Linneus, Owen are just like any psycologist today ? Everything done before, using scietific method, was not science...

Are you deliberately stupid? Darwin is obviously not included in a "before evolution theory" statement. And yes, mere cataloguing is not much of a science. What part of this do you not understand?

And no one dared to do that...Just when Darwin, the most influencial scietific mind of last 2 centuries, was buried, he was put in the same level as Newton because what he did was "soft" science. No one dared to put his Biology and himself in the level of Newton and Physics...

You are a fucking moron. Once again, and for the record, Darwin is obviously not included in a "before evolution theory" statement.

[lgot]

You claimed that it is not necessary. We explained that it is, in fact, necessary for objectivity. If you can't measure it, you have no way of ascertaining accuracy. Without accurate reproducibility, you do not have the scientific method. You just have pseudoscientific bullshit.

Mathematic is not the only objective way of expression. You can express anything, be objective without need to transform the result in a mathematic model. Actually to be ojective, you do not have to create a mathematic model for something that can not be expressed by one. And you can test something without the use of matemathic model.

The part where you claimed that science without numbers is no less valid than science with numbers, dumb-ass. Not my fault you don't recognize what pseudoscience is.

Of course, as i said, I was meaning to the very own difference made between Physics, Chemestry,etc as calculations sciences (I actually have no idea, here in Brazil the areas are split in Exatas, Humanas e Biologicas, so I have no idea how it is named the area of physics ,if it is called) and the social sciences as not-calculations sciences (even if they actually use statistics). And there was no word about valid actually...

[Durandal]

Bullshit. Numbers are truly objective. Human feelings are not.

Sorry Durandal. you are making mistake. Human Feelings are the object of study. They do not need to be objective. Your study needs.

So what is the object of study? Human behavior, which is based on human feelings? Please do something other than just saying, "You're wrong."

Oh, yeah, Actually statistics are used by everyone. The "work with calculations" is a reference to physics, chemestry, etc.
But then again: I do not mind what they say and I know it was true. The students did that in my old class and back then , I found it stupidy because it was easy.

Statistics are used quite frequently in physics; that is true. However, they are not the only thing being used.

Basead on calculation use or not, peope want to label soft was pseudo-science. This is ridiculous.

Psychology is borderline pseudoscience.

Durandal, the Scientific Method Must be able to study human feelings. They are part of human nature. The SM must study and be able to be the best explanation to all reality and all that happens in nature. The reason is again, the subject does not need to be objective. Only the study.

You just said that human feelings weren't the object of study. Please try and maintain some level of internal consistency. In any case, the scientific method does not have to and cannot be applied to everything. Your above statement completely dodges my point that there is no way for human feelings to be objectively quantified (which is a requirement for science, whether you want to accept it or not), which automatically disqualifies any studies of them from being objective. When I can turn in a lab for a physics course with the conclusion, "This object's kinetic energy increased by a lot," and leave it at that, psychology can be a science.

See if that is not prejudice. If you can not use calculations it is not real science.

That's not prejudice, you nitwit. That's a simple requirement of the scientific method, because numbers are the only truly objective method we have of measuring something. What's next? Am I prejudiced for saying that science has to involve things that are observable?

I did not know there is a competition. But you are talking about a science that is about 100 years only of study. Tell me, since man started to study life or biology , they already come with the package ? Wait, until today , as is natural, they do not know everything.
I agree with you, but I would like to remember you to consider how young most of those sciencies actually are.

The fact that psychology is "young" does not excuse it from not being objective! There is a fundamental flaw in its methodologies that, if it keeps persisting, will prevent it from ever approaching usefulness.

Oh, really ? So Biology was not a science. Darwin, Linneus, Owen are just like any psycologist today ? Everything done before, using scietific method, was not science...

No, they are scientists. Please read what I wrote with regards to Darwin. The scientific method includes objectivity, which invariably means numbers.

And no one dared to do that...Just when Darwin, the most influencial scietific mind of last 2 centuries, was buried, he was put in the same level as Newton because what he did was "soft" science. No one dared to put his Biology and himself in the level of Newton and Physics...

Einstein was far more influential than Darwin. Again, read what I wrote. You obviously just skimmed my post and reacted with a knee-jerk because we who study real science are picking on the poor psychology students. You know what? I don't care what you choose to study, but it's fraud to consider it a science when it clearly is not. You think that we're all just meanies who want to discredit psychology because we have a harder curriculum and are bitter that psychology students get a science degree with less work. However, the truth is that science requires numbers and quantification of the object being studied. Psychology does not quantify human behavior. Human behavior has no units. Psychology itself has no units, just ratios.

[Darth Wong]

Mathematic is not the only objective way of expression. You can express anything, be objective without need to transform the result in a mathematic model. Actually to be ojective, you do not have to create a mathematic model for something that can not be expressed by one. And you can test something without the use of matemathic model.

Such as?

How do you determine whether one theory is more accurate than the next with only vague methods of collecting data? And don't bullshit about forensic statistics; they are made with little or no experimental controls. Or do you think control of variables is also unnecessary for good science?

[lgot]

Yet again, you spout your uninformed opinion without justifying it. I already explained that objectivity is necessary for accuracy, and accuracy is how we determine that one theory is better than another. That is the crux of the scientific method, and you are ignoring it.

of course that the whole message is to justify it is not true...
Objectivity is not the same as mathematic model. The only thing I said. You know that too well for me to repeat it again. Accuracy is not the same as mathematic model as well. Even if a mathematic model is the most perfect example of accuracy, any afirmation proved by Data have accuracy.
There was the thread USA Founding fathers. You come there and was objective and used accurate data to defend our theory about the FF of USA having created a state without religious influece in the governament and laws. You can test it anytime, as you did, using examples of jurisdiction, the constitituion, the background of the fathers, and their discuss. You used - as you try to do everytime a scietific aproach, using the scietific method to analyze that. As anyone can do. And yet, you did not proposed in your arguments a mathematic method to express your theory. That did not make you pseudo or less scietific. That is how, real social scientists work. As well.

Irrelevant. The use of the method does not depend on the age or maturity of the field.

Of course He said "No sane person who wanted to classify psychology as a science would ever put it in the same league of accuracy, robustness and sheer success as the aforementioned hard sciences." not about the objective use of method, but sucess, accuracy, and the time of the field have influence yes.

Are you deliberately stupid? Darwin is obviously not included in a "before evolution theory" statement. And yes, mere cataloguing is not much of a science. What part of this do you not understand?

of course they only did cataloguing...Wait, But Darwin is obviously included in before Genoma. Sorry, You forgot to read that.

[lgot]

You just said that human feelings weren't the object of study.

I said they are.

In any case, the scientific method does not have to and cannot be applied to everything.

Scientific method does have to be used to evertything that is real. Where it says it can not ?

Einstein was far more influential than Darwin. Again, read what I wrote.

and you did not said anything about Darwin but now. And the Einstein vs. Darwin influence is open for another argument and have no relevance here. You know how influencial he was and that was enough.

You obviously just skimmed my post and reacted with a knee-jerk because we who study real science are picking on the poor psychology students.

Your burst is funny, and Please, I do not studied Psycology. It is really funny to see this need of afirmation of status...[/code]

[Darth Wong]

of course that the whole message is to justify it is not true...
Objectivity is not the same as mathematic model. The only thing I said. You know that too well for me to repeat it again.

And I said that quantitative observations are more objective than qualitative ones because you can ascertain accuracy. What part of this are you too dense to understand?

Accuracy is not the same as mathematic model as well. Even if a mathematic model is the most perfect example of accuracy, any afirmation proved by Data have accuracy.

Now you're just talking gibberish. How do you compare the accuracy of two theories against observation if those observations are non-quantitative and their own accuracy cannot be ascertained?

There was the thread USA Founding fathers. You come there and was objective and used accurate data to defend our theory about the FF of USA having created a state without religious influece in the governament and laws. You can test it anytime, as you did, using examples of jurisdiction, the constitituion, the background of the fathers, and their discuss.

Now you're simply being stupid. That was not a scientific discussion by any stretch of the imagination, and all quotes are in fact subjective evidence of the author's state of mind. They can only be considered objective evidence if we are trying to determine the contents of the quote itself rather than the author's intent, and that's a useless tautology. At no point was that a scientific discussion; it was a political one.

You used - as you try to do everytime a scietific aproach, using the scietific method to analyze that. As anyone can do. And yet, you did not proposed in your arguments a mathematic method to express your theory. That did not make you pseudo or less scietific. That is how, real social scientists work. As well.

At no point did I claim that it was a SCIENTIFIC claim to say that the American founding fathers were not Christians. I do believe it is true, but that doesn't make it a science, dumb-ass.

Of course He said "No sane person who wanted to classify psychology as a science would ever put it in the same league of accuracy, robustness and sheer success as the aforementioned hard sciences." not about the objective use of method, but sucess, accuracy, and the time of the field have influence yes.

He is only pointing out that physics is more reliable than psychology. Your ridiculous claim that this is solely due to age is supported only by your ignorant opinion. Psychology has actually been around for longer than most fields of physics, and has been studied for thousands of years. Its relative failure is not a function of age.

Are you deliberately stupid? Darwin is obviously not included in a "before evolution theory" statement. And yes, mere cataloguing is not much of a science. What part of this do you not understand?

of course they only did cataloguing...Wait, But Darwin is obviously included in before Genoma. Sorry, You forgot to read that.

No, you're an idiot. Durandal said "until evolution theory", and here's a little-known secret: Darwin wrote evolution theory! So obviously, Darwin is not included in Durandal's statement. Not my fault you needed to have this explained to you THREE times.

[Darth Wong]

Scientific method does have to be used to evertything that is real. Where it says it can not?

Don't change the subject. No one is saying that something can't exist without scientific evaluation thereof. We are saying that psychology is a poor science. Your ignorant claims and this new strawman subject change are merely your pathetic attempts to attack science, not deal with the subject matter.

Your burst is funny, and Please, I do not studied Psycology. It is really funny to see this need of afirmation of status...

Funny because it gives you an excuse to evade and ignore all of the points he made? Sorry, but that sort of bullshit doesn't fly.

[RedImperator]

RedImperor:

You should know then, that your personal experience is not a valid representant of everything.

Find me the part of that post where I claimed that, dickhead, and I'll gladly concede that point.

So, hard science is when you have to calculate, not when you have do all the job with a number of variations that can not be easily represented as mathematic model ?

Yes. If you can't break your variables down into something that can be measured objectively, it's impossible to disprove a theory. If you can't do that, it's not a science. That's why physicists stopped talking about the celestial ether a hundred years ago but Freud and Marx are still taken seriously.

Not about all the hard work of the research that you can have in any field ? You really think, It was easy for exampe, To Adorno , study and come with his theory about Mass Comunication ? A Weekend work,he did as colected cards ?

Take your dick out of the strawman, please. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's scientific. I suppose since it's hard to jerk off and juggle at the same time, we should call that scientific too.

Just that the scietific method does not says "Put it in a mathematic model or it is not science".

Were you born this dumb or did you have to work at it? The scientific method says if you can't quantify your variables, you can't test your theories and your work is not scientific. I used the term mathematical model because that's what I think psychology could eventually develop: a series of equations that predict human behavior based on observable chemical reactions in the brain, the same way physics developed equations do describe the motion of objects based on their velocity, resistance from the medium in which they're traveling, their mass, and the mass of nearby gravitational attractors.

It does not ask that. Machiavelli did not put in mathematic models his politics theories -but he did the research, his theories are still tested until today. And for more amazing that can be, they are extremelly accurate.

The Prince was a marvelous piece of insight and was notable for separating political science from ethics and theology, but Machiavelli's theories are NOWHERE near as accurate at Newton's or Einstein's, and there's no way to predict in any objective manner if they're going to be accurate when they're applied (among other problems, if the group upon which you're trying to apply those theories is aware of them, they'll react differently--a far cry from science, where the phenomona being observed don't deviate from their predicted behaviors BECAUSE their behaviors have been predicted, quantum physics notwithstanding).

[lgot]

And I said that quantitative observations are more objective than qualitative ones because you can ascertain accuracy. What part of this are you too dense to understand?

The obvious part that if you achived accuracy without a mathematic model, there is no need to transform it in one just to obey a style need.
Actually, Seems like you understood that I am defending a total non-use of mathematic by science. I am not doing that.

How do you compare the accuracy of two theories against observation if those observations are non-quantitative and their own accuracy cannot be ascertained?

eh ? The theory about human origem in africa have been accepted over a asian or european origem due the accuracy of fossil register. Facts are accurate also. Even if you argue that I forget that "to determinage age is needed mathematic" or "population statistics", the theory itself was not turned and do not need to be turned in a mathematic model. The same goes for the theory of human movememnt from Africa-Asia-North America-South America.

That was not a scientific discussion by any stretch of the imagination, and all quotes are in fact subjective evidence of the author's state of mind. They can only be considered objective evidence if we are trying to determine the contents of the quote itself rather than the author's intent, and that's a useless tautology. At no point was that a scientific discussion; it was a political one.

hmm ? Let me see , you seek knowledge about the subject, you have the definition about the problem you dealt, you seek for data, you seek for the test of the theory, then you defended your opinion with those basis and this is not a scietific argument ? Even if you followed scietific approach ?
Plus, yeah, The quote of the Fathers are indeed subjective but the text of the law they wrote, showing the separation between state and church is objective.

Durandal said "until evolution theory", and here's a little-known secret: Darwin wrote evolution theory! So obviously, Darwin is not included in Durandal's statement. Not my fault you needed to have this explained to you THREE times

Yes, but it is your fault that your selective reading did not saw "And no one would have imagined putting it in the same league as physics and chemistry until the genome was successfully decoded." I would never say anything about Darwin pre-evolution, because evolution was in the world decades before him actually.

No one is saying that something can't exist without scientific evaluation thereof.

yeah ? "In any case, the scientific method does not have to and cannot be applied to everything." Durandal said and defended the idea. Selective reading. Again. Bad thing.

Your ignorant claims and this new strawman subject change are merely your pathetic attempts to attack science, not deal with the subject matter.

1 - He said that Sciece could not be used to study humans feeling. 2 - I said it could study all that is real. 3 - You created the Strawman saying I am attacking Science. Try to keep track of your own answers. You and Durandal did not agree about everything.

Funny because it gives you an excuse to evade and ignore all of the points he made?

Ah, he maid many points in that burst, yeah. I think you are mean guys who hunt down psycology. That is the point there...yeah...

[lgot]

Find me the part of that post where I claimed that, dickhead, and I'll gladly concede that point.

" also know I didn't work anywhere near as hard for my degree as the guys with "Bachelor of Science" printed on theirs. "

Sure. You are talking about yourself, dont you ?

If you can't break your variables down into something that can be measured objectively, it's impossible to disprove a theory.

Nope. Facts are objectives. The feathers in fossiles do much more to support the dino-bird theory than any calculation. You can use also other stuff, but the feathers are objective evidence.
Unless you mean this is a variable that is measured, but very simple indeed. If so, my mistakes, I was really thinking you are asking for more complex mathematic models.

That's why physicists stopped talking about the celestial ether a hundred years ago but Freud and Marx are still taken seriously.

As celestial you mean religion ? But if you study societies or humankind you must take account such thing as religion institutions or imagery. They do not talk about Religion philosophy or dogmas as a priest would do...

Take your dick out of the strawman, please. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's scientific.

eh, i gave you a example of a scietific study. You turn in "something is difficult"...

I used the term mathematical model because that's what I think psychology could eventually develop: a series of equations that predict human behavior based on observable chemical reactions in the brain, the same way physics developed equations do describe the motion of objects based on their velocity, resistance from the medium in which they're traveling, their mass, and the mass of nearby gravitational attractors.

Actually, If i am not mistaken psicology already works with Neurology like that. But that is not the point. Mathematic is just a language. You do not need to transform everything in mathematic to be scietific.

The Prince was a marvelous piece of insight and was notable for separating political science from ethics and theology, but Machiavelli's theories are NOWHERE near as accurate at Newton's or Einstein's, and there's no way to predict in any objective manner if they're going to be accurate when they're applied

eh ? Machiavelli theories are accurate enough to satisfy the scietific Method. And you can use political science to predict society, yes.
There is enough periods of history that machiavelli theories are put to prove and you will hardly find any that he could have not be used to predict the outcome or in case of "Princes" the necessary actions. He actually did when Wrote with Cesar Borghia! That was his objectives and they worked out.

[RedImperator]

" also know I didn't work anywhere near as hard for my degree as the guys with "Bachelor of Science" printed on theirs. "

Sure. You are talking about yourself, dont you ?

Of course I was speaking of myself. What I was NOT claiming was that my personal experience constitutes a universal truth, which is what you claimed I was saying. It is CLOSE to a universal truth as far as I can tell, save for some outliers, but I have no proof.

Nope. Facts are objectives. The feathers in fossiles do much more to support the dino-bird theory than any calculation. You can use also other stuff, but the feathers are objective evidence.
Unless you mean this is a variable that is measured, but very simple indeed. If so, my mistakes, I was really thinking you are asking for more complex mathematic models.

The presence of feathers is a quantifiable, objective fact. Anybody can look at the feathers and see them. The observation is repeatable--different people can look at the same specimen and see the same thing, and you can look at different Archaeopteryx fossils and also see feather imprints. History and political science also deal in objective facts. Russia has nuclear missiles, for example, or Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States.

The hard sciences and the social sciences diverge when it comes time to make theories and predictions. Objective data, when viewed through the lens of known physical, chemical, or biological laws derived from earlier observations and experimentation, can be used to test theories. The social sciences have no such laws, because it's impossible to quantify and predict human behavior.

THAT'S why I said "mathematical model", because human behavior is too complex to be mapped any other way. Until you can say, "Subject X in condition A will react in manner n to stimulus A'," with a better degree of accuracy than "probably", the social sciences will never be true sciences. They're worthwhile fields of study and still lend us insight into how society works, but they're never going to be "hard" sciences (which, in case you haven't figured this out yet, refers to the firmness of the conclusions, NOT the difficulty of the work).

As celestial you mean religion ? But if you study societies or humankind you must take account such thing as religion institutions or imagery. They do not talk about Religion philosophy or dogmas as a priest would do...

Before physicists realized that light could travel in a vacuum, they thought a mysterious, unknown medium called the celestial ether filled the cosmos between planets and stars. This wasn't some crackpot theory, this is what mainstream physicists believed because they didn't believe light, a wave, could travel without a medium. People still occasionally say, "over the ether" when they refer to broadcasting.

eh, i gave you a example of a scietific study. You turn in "something is difficult"...

That's twice you've played dumb about your own strawmen. You claimed I was arguing that social theorists didn't work hard, apparently because you're too big a ninny to realize "hard" science is a metaphor.

I used the term mathematical model because that's what I think psychology could eventually develop: a series of equations that predict human behavior based on observable chemical reactions in the brain, the same way physics developed equations do describe the motion of objects based on their velocity, resistance from the medium in which they're traveling, their mass, and the mass of nearby gravitational attractors.

Actually, If i am not mistaken psicology already works with Neurology like that. But that is not the point. Mathematic is just a language. You do not need to transform everything in mathematic to be scietific.

Usually I snip my previous responses so there's less clutter, but I want to leave this intact, just so everybody can see how far over your head my point went. Neuropsychology does in fact work that way, and it's the one branch of psychology that approaches a real science, and is, IMHO, the only one that's ever going to turn out useful results over the long term.

And everything in science IS described my mathmatics, with the possible exceptions of the subbranches like taxonomy which are devoted purely to cataloging and observing phenomona without making new theories. If all history, psych, polisci, and economics did was observe, you might get away with calling them observational sciences. But they theorize without an objective way to judge if those theories are correct or not.

To illustrate: Even after the failure of every single Communist economy, academics still believe Marx was right and/or use Marxist ideas to analyze historical and political trends and are taken quite seriously by their peers. Now imagine what would happen to a chemist who submitted a theory that relied on the four classical medieval elements, or a biologist who endorsed phrenology
.

eh ? Machiavelli theories are accurate enough to satisfy the scietific Method. And you can use political science to predict society, yes.
There is enough periods of history that machiavelli theories are put to prove and you will hardly find any that he could have not be used to predict the outcome or in case of "Princes" the necessary actions. He actually did when Wrote with Cesar Borghia! That was his objectives and they worked out.

Oh Christ, cut me a break here. Are you really claiming that Machievelli's ideas are right the same percentage of the time as, say, "force equals mass times acceleration"?

[lgot]

Of course I was speaking of myself. What I was NOT claiming was that my personal experience constitutes a universal truth, which is what you claimed I was saying.

Dude, You said you will concede the point. Now, You try to explain how you mistaken. Not very good, since I never said Anything about universal truth.

The presence of feathers is a quantifiable, objective fact.

and yet they are not mathematic models, which is what I am making reference as the scientif method does not aply any limitation to "only mathematic"

The social sciences have no such laws, because it's impossible to quantify and predict human behavior.

Not only is possible, as It is done everyday. Even because - you do not seem to know - mathematic is used.
And you are doing a mistake. Science Can study the human behaviador. There is no such limitation to sciece as "only can study what you can predict or quantify", Science can study everything.

(which, in case you haven't figured this out yet, refers to the firmness of the conclusions, NOT the difficulty of the work).

You seem to be lost. A lot of social theories are accepted, accurate as any others. And for Example, In Biology there is a lot of study without such firmness of conclusion, simple because they are still hypothesis.

Before physicists realized that light could travel in a vacuum, they thought a mysterious, unknown medium called the celestial ether filled the cosmos between planets and stars.

ah, i see thanks. That actually have little to do with what is said that. If you have said ether i would have know about it, but the mix with Freud and Marx confused me.

That's twice you've played dumb about your own strawmen.

This is twice you fail to see the "hard" science is a metaphor and I was saying how this is a generalization that shows prejudice of the social science. Therefore I gave you a example of study that is accepted , was tested and is used to predict the human behaviador every single day.

Usually I snip my previous responses so there's less clutter, but I want to leave this intact, just so everybody can see how far over your head my point went.

Actually, the argument is about a psycology is a science. You claim it is not for not use of mathematic model. I say it actually uses, you think is far over my head.

And everything in science IS described my mathmatics

interesting. Stephen Hawkins claims that he can describe science without mathematics. That mathematic is just a language used. And that moderm scietists turned to be so specialized in mathematic (a reference to his own scietific branch) that it was turning away from science, for being unable to illustrate the knowledge achived in something else than complex mathematic. He claims that is wrong. If he can claim that and try to make exactly the same thing, to explain, illustrate, demonstrate science without the overabuse of mathematic, how can you claim that all scientif theory must have mathematic model ? You can, you do not need.

To illustrate: Even after the failure of every single Communist economy, academics still believe Marx was right and/or use Marxist ideas to analyze historical and political trends and are taken quite seriously by their peers. Now imagine what would happen to a chemist who submitted a theory that relied on the four classical medieval elements, or a biologist who endorsed phrenology

let me see:
1 - Communist theory ? It was utopia, not a theory that marx created.
2 - Marx theories are exactly what you want. A Mathematic model (economic) he applied to society.
3 - You have still to study Marx, his importance is beyond just his "science", he have influence beyond this.
4 - Marx did mistakes but NOT ALL he said is wrong. A lot of stuff is still used basead in his studies becuase they are not show wrong. And of course, the majority of it have no relation with communism. That is why Marx is still studied.
5 - Now, you talk about those who did abuse of Marx. True, there is people who mix up political idealism with scietific study,and yeah, they do a mistake and thus you can say they do is pseudoscietific as much as a biologist that defend creationism (and there is those people). It is mistaken of the person, not of the science.

Are you really claiming that Machievelli's ideas are right the same percentage of the time as, say, "force equals mass times acceleration"?

I am claming they are accurate enough to satisfy the scietific method, therefore be Science. Put in your mind I am not making a competition between fields of science.

[Mad]

The hard sciences and the social sciences diverge when it comes time to make theories and predictions. Objective data, when viewed through the lens of known physical, chemical, or biological laws derived from earlier observations and experimentation, can be used to test theories. The social sciences have no such laws, because it's impossible to quantify and predict human behavior.

What about things in behavioral psychology such as classical conditioning or operant conditioning, both of which have been shown to be reliable? (A graduate psychology class was able to get one of their professors to lecture from the right side of the room while toying with the cords from the blinds without him even realizing it just by applying operant conditioning.)

Milgram's studies on obedience were also consistent, showing how a majority of the population will follow orders from authoritative figures even knowing it may injure or even kill another human being. These studies are repeatable. (Before the experiments, a group of psychologists thought only 1% would comply. It turned out that 65% complied in the initial experiment. After the experiments were repeated, it became apparent that the initial guess was wrong.)

Cognitive psychology also has ways of creating statistics and applying them (70% chance of this happening, 10% chance of this.... etc). And, of course, there's biopsychology, which deals with the biological aspect of human behavior.

It sounds like what you have a problem with are the Freudian (psychodynamic) and humanistic branches, which are not scientific. 3/5ths of the branches of psychology are scientific, while the 2/5ths that are unscientific are the most visible in therapy.

THAT'S why I said "mathematical model", because human behavior is too complex to be mapped any other way. Until you can say, "Subject X in condition A will react in manner n to stimulus A'," with a better degree of accuracy than "probably", the social sciences will never be true sciences. They're worthwhile fields of study and still lend us insight into how society works, but they're never going to be "hard" sciences (which, in case you haven't figured this out yet, refers to the firmness of the conclusions, NOT the difficulty of the work).

Would you say that quantum theory is unscientific? After all, the results come out as probabilities and not predicting everything exactly. The scientific branches of psychology are similar, though there is more deviation due to the subject matter. They can and do produce statistics that can be verified by running more experiments. When the statistics remain consistent through several variations on the experiments and through several groups, the theory is believed to be reliable. What is not scientific about this?