6 ms·

Psychology is probabilistic science, that's the best we can do given the complexities of the mind. If you want to get a taste of rigor in psychology I suggest y

Psychology is probabilistic science, that's the best we can do given the complexities of the mind. If you want to get a taste of rigor in psychology I suggest you read some of the works by Carl Jung. Agreed, most people looking to understand the psyche would be better off reading literature / art.

luffapi 5y ago
Carl Jung while interesting is anything but rigorous science. Like I said, treat this stuff like fiction. Some can even be insightful! > Psychology is probabilistic science It’s not science if it doesn’t include reproducibility.
- rusk 5y ago
  Carl Jung is psychotherapy, which is studied under psychology because it has therapeutic value. But at least as I understand it, it is not in and of itself “psychology”. It’s a popular misconception but if that’s your criticism of psychology you don’t know what you’re talking about.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    I was responding to the parent who used Carl Jung as an example.
- evilsetg 5y ago
  If the probabilities are reproducible it is still science I would say. Take quantum mechanics for example. It can not predict what exactly is going to happen, only how likely each outcome would be.
  - C-x_C-f 5y ago
    > It can not predict what exactly is going to happen, only how likely each outcome would be. Yeah but the key difference is that QM is a mathematically solid theory starting from a couple basic laws to yield predictions with p-values of 0 (for all intents and purposes anyway). Also note that there are non-probabilistic measurements in QM, be they measurements of aggregate behavior or just pure states [1]. In that respect, QM and most physical sciences really are miles ahead of psychology (though I don't think that's reason to discredit the latter, as it has obvious empirical merit). If I may be a bit bolder still, I'd argue that it's not merely a quantitative difference. As pointed out by many other comments, psychology completely lacks any sort of unifying framework, except perhaps for small clusters of thematically similar phenomena. A collection of empirical facts does not a scientific theory make, or--taken to the cheeky extreme--"All science is either physics or stamp collecting" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state#Pure_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state#Pure_states [2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Quotes

luffapi 5y ago

Carl Jung while interesting is anything but rigorous science. Like I said, treat this stuff like fiction. Some can even be insightful! > Psychology is probabilistic science It’s not science if it doesn’t include reproducibility.

rusk 5y ago
Carl Jung is psychotherapy, which is studied under psychology because it has therapeutic value. But at least as I understand it, it is not in and of itself “psychology”. It’s a popular misconception but if that’s your criticism of psychology you don’t know what you’re talking about.
- luffapi 5y ago
  I was responding to the parent who used Carl Jung as an example.
evilsetg 5y ago
If the probabilities are reproducible it is still science I would say. Take quantum mechanics for example. It can not predict what exactly is going to happen, only how likely each outcome would be.
- C-x_C-f 5y ago
  > It can not predict what exactly is going to happen, only how likely each outcome would be. Yeah but the key difference is that QM is a mathematically solid theory starting from a couple basic laws to yield predictions with p-values of 0 (for all intents and purposes anyway). Also note that there are non-probabilistic measurements in QM, be they measurements of aggregate behavior or just pure states [1]. In that respect, QM and most physical sciences really are miles ahead of psychology (though I don't think that's reason to discredit the latter, as it has obvious empirical merit). If I may be a bit bolder still, I'd argue that it's not merely a quantitative difference. As pointed out by many other comments, psychology completely lacks any sort of unifying framework, except perhaps for small clusters of thematically similar phenomena. A collection of empirical facts does not a scientific theory make, or--taken to the cheeky extreme--"All science is either physics or stamp collecting" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state#Pure_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state#Pure_states [2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Quotes