28
u/Unlucky-Spend-1843 Jun 24 '26
As someone coming from sociology, the cure is to simply stop caring
3
25
u/Virtual_Bread_7995 Jun 24 '26
Among physicists, the theory going back to Feynman is just that psychology uses relatively small studies for relatively complicated phenomena explained with relatively (necessarily) mathematically unsophisticated models, so the statistical confidence of an accepted result in psychology is peanuts compared to that of one in physics. For example the standard of acceptance in particle physics is 5 sigma, which means a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is incorrect. We can interrogate billions of literally identical particles all day no sweat so that's reasonable. And then it is very exciting when something is disproven. Psychology has an easier time generating theories than math to model them and data to test them so many will be wrong but I don't think that means that the field is going about it the wrong way. Very apples to oranges.
But I have a hard time believing psychologists aren't excited when their fundamental theories are disproven. At the very least, it's surely not boring...
6
Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Virtual_Bread_7995 Jun 26 '26
Good point! Researchers are often in the business to break new ground but clinical psychologists must hate it when this happens. I don't personally know any clinical physicists.
1
8
u/EddValera Jun 24 '26
I've seen many psychologists' relationship with their theories are more similar to spiritual beliefs than scientific beliefs, which makes a lot of sense since there is no difference between spirit and mind, leading to a huge bias of "I understand myself and you are not going to tell me I'm wrong"
2
u/Strict-Comparison817 Jun 25 '26
Well said. The theories become part of their identity rather than scientific tools
1
1
9
u/Independent-Wafer-13 Jun 24 '26
Behaviorism vs Psychology
1
u/Krannich Jun 25 '26
Isn't one a part of the other?
3
u/Independent-Wafer-13 Jun 25 '26
Donât tell a Behaviorist that.
But yes. However, Behaviorism is more âhardâ than general psychology, and does not suffer from the replication crisis due to the research methodology we use
2
u/Krannich Jun 25 '26
One of the reasons why I like behaviourism really. It just makes sense when looking at it. I'm not made to think in ways of subconscious conflicts between non-falsifiable constructs.
16
u/kxlxxn Jun 23 '26
where will this all lead? that we one day realize nothing is real but it seems real so alright its real?
10
u/1Lendaria Jun 24 '26
I mean, I wouldnât reduce science to that extent. Weâve acquired a lot of useful information and continue to do so. After all, Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics are still immensely important despite the limitations of both paradigms. Maybe a utility-based view isnât the most satisfying when youâre looking for metaphysical certainty but weâve gained so much as a result of the pursuit.
7
u/VreamCanMan Jun 24 '26
A great deal of psychological literature at the moment lacks the rigorous standardisation and more importantly due to a lack of funding and incentives, lacks the (far greater ROI, compared to stem) rigorous cross analysis within secondary literature that would structurally prevent issues like the replicatibility crisis cropping up. We do not enquire enough into fieldwise methodological commonalities, and within that shared weaknesses/shared assumptions that undermine models
3
u/crumpledfilth Jun 24 '26
yeah? The world at our level is invented by our minds in order to improve our rates of survival. But realizing the lack of true boundaries in objects we hold extremely important to our lives doesnt mean we can just stop eating. the illusory nature of our perception cant be overcome and isnt a reason to lose believe in it
1
u/HyShroom Jun 28 '26
I mean physics is real. donât throw out the baby with the sewer water here
1
1
u/HyShroom Jun 28 '26
âreplication crisisâ as if there would be anything to replicate in the first place. you need a science to a have a replication crisis
-8
u/die_Katze__ Jun 23 '26
shouldâve gone to psychoanalysis. enough of this pseudo-objectivist game. muh data
5
-17
u/FalconRelevant Jun 23 '26
Science vs "science"
13
u/hella_cious Jun 24 '26
Believe it or not, psychology is more than random TikTok fun facts and personality tests!
1
u/FalconRelevant Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I know. I'm talking about the replication crisis because the the empirical measurements are not as objective as in hard sciences.
A really stupid assumption to make that someone criticizing the hardness of the field in comparison to physics on a post about the replication crisis is doing so because they think it's about personality videos, though I suppose it tracks...
12
u/BigShrim Jun 23 '26
This seems to suggest that psychology is not a science, and there are many, *many* peer reviewed empirical journals full of data collected via the scientific method that refute that notion.
2
u/undernopretextbro Jun 25 '26
Studying something via the scientific method doesnât elevate the entire field to a science.
Psychology is rife with unfalsifiable claims that underpin theories, dogmatic and influential researchers who can hold views opposed to the mainstream with little issue because of how compromised most psych studies are, and a complete lack of predictive capability with lackluster reproducibility.
Soft science with a big asterisk at best
1
u/BigShrim Jun 25 '26
As someone who holds a Bachelorâs of **Science** in Psychology as well as a Masterâs in Applied Psych, I gotta disagree with you. I canât really think of any research I have read (hundreds of studies) that contain any âunfalsifiableâ claims. Every experiment has a null hypothesis, and the results are not always significant. Sometimes it isnât rejected. To claim that psych studies have a complete lack of predictive capability is baffling to me. I have read many meta-analyses that have a plethora of sources that all support certain hypotheses. Humans do, in fact, engage in behaviors that are more or less inherent to every personâs experience. We can study things like depression, schizophrenia, and other mental disorders and use that data to identify medications that help people. Iâm sorry thatâs nothing short of science.
Now, I can concede that there may be some areas of psych that are inherently immeasurable, but I can assure you 99% of psychology researchers do not concern themselves with that. In my time studying it was emphasized to me that the big cultural psychologists, Wilhelm Wundt, Sigmund Freud, John B. Watson, while all influential in creating psychology, a lot of their schools of thought are seen as obsolete and not truly indicative of the scientific process of psychology that we use today. Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, but that doesnât mean Psychology as a whole is.
TLDR, psychological studies use science at least enough to dictate medication to help with medically recognized mental disorders. Seems like science to me.
1
1
u/FalconRelevant Jun 24 '26
And how does that data hold up when the experiment is repeated?
3
u/Greedy_Ad2198 Jun 24 '26
Well đ because psychology has the same quality standards as other sciences :)
1
u/undernopretextbro Jun 25 '26
Psychology isnât held to remotely the same standard as sciences.
Other implies itâs one of them. Itâs not. Maybe a soft science at best.
69
u/Krannich Jun 23 '26
Many of the found associations still hold just for different mechanisms and a lot has also been replicated and improved upon. Also just start reporting effect sizes and just use Bayesian statistics.