Is Psychology a pseudoscience?

see above.

That mostly is a meme, medicine also has a huge replication "crisis" especially Neuro stuff.
There was, if I remember correctly, some paper where they tried to replicate a couple of neuroscience studies, they took the same people and basically zero of the studies replicated.

Exact same goes for medicine.
There you can also just manipulate the numbers to get some positive result for your drug.

>that don't actually PROVE their theories.
Spoiler, theories are never proven. Newton was, after all, wrong. Infact the possibility to DISPROVE a theory is essential for it being legitimate science.
Theories are never proven, please don't get a into a fit of rage because that destroys your image of science, literally every scientist accepts that.

I think he means the proof of psychology is limited to suggestions with little or no reasoning.

Yeah and? Newton also had no reasoning why his laws were correct, no "proof" there.

If science isn't about making valid predictions, then what is it about?

A lot of it is, in particular social psychology. Go read an intro book about it and then look up how many of the experiments were disproven since the book has been published.

it's like astrology just a little bit smarter

based and blackpilled

Attached: 1552790168281.png (831x799, 329K)

>naively describe something with no metaphysical self-awareness ("Sadness is when the patient says 'I'm sad!'")
What would be the point of establishing a metaphysical definition for sadness that only applies to people who accept the definition and has no basis on the real world? Words (and subsequently emotions) only have meaning contingent on their social usage. There is no absolute SAD. There is only a manifold of different sads that all refer to something distinct dependent on the subject. The only sad that exists is the one the subject feels at the moment. You can’t do science upon the abstract metaphysical SAD but you can treat the particular sad of a subject.

>clumsily link naive descriptions to "empirical data" (ask a bunch of retards, "You sad?")
These descriptions are operation like in any other science. You don’t have to accept them metaphysically, but if you do within the paradigm of the study you have access to an objective understanding of the phenomenon. If there is a part of your brain that makes you “sad” then it really doesn’t matter whether that “sad” is actually SAD. It’s just a term at that point that refers to a specific phenomenon that can be reliably referred to in studies and subsequently manipulated.

>naively decide what counts as an answer or not (completely discard all "non-answers," like when one of your force-fed test subjects says "I'm not sure I'd quite call it sadness, what is sadness anyway? What if there's a whole subtle range of 'sadness' and I only feel parts of it?")
This is actually retarded. Imagine doing this for any other science. “So what if we like cancer is a range and I only have parts of it?” No you retard, if you don’t accept a definition for what you’re feeling that it can’t be access by anyone else but you. If you refuse to accept a social range for you emotions/experiences then you leave them as unintelligible.
Even besides this point, emotions as a whole are recognized in experimental psych as being nothing but subjective evaluations of ambiguous states of arousal. In other words, emotions are cognitive determinations that are invented by the subject to explain internal phenomenon. What one person refers to as happiness can just be joy or complacency to another. The goal of neuroscience is to get at what these things actually are beyond these subjective evaluations. You can think of the distinction between primary/secondary qualities as they are described in physics.

>take the now arbitrary and confirmation/selection-biased "data" and plot it using a spreadsheet
By arbitrary you mena operation and hence reproducible and inteligible.

>publish a paper with 91 other people
>have massive experiment replication crisis because of systemically low standards and sloppy research like this
But this isn’t true at all. There’s such a large lists of psychological phenomenon that is so easy to replicate it’s like the easiest field to make experiments in. You have priming, anchoring, attribution errors, phoneme restoration, cognitive biases, signal detection biases, cocktail effect, the asch lines studies, learned helplessness, stereotype threat, self-fulfilling prophecies, classic conditioning, operant conditioning, encoding specificity, spreading activation, Tetris effect, implicit learning, lexical activation, semantic activation, fixation, conservation, analogous priming, and so much more.

>continue telling 7 year old children to take brain-melting pills whose real interactions you don't understand because you still don't understand what consciousness fucking is and you think "I feel better, doc!" == "Patient is better!" instead of potentially infinite other possibilities like "Patient's soul has been obliterated and patient is now a robot who says 'I'm better, doc!' when asked if he's better"
Oh yeah, and YOU totally have access to an absolutely universally applicable definition of what consciousness is and what qualifies someone as being “better”.

>kill entire human race by normalizing chemical lobotomies
Medication is almost ALWAYS recommended along cognitive therapy. Only dirty psychiatrist just prescribe drugs. Admittedly humans are terrible so most psychiatrists are terrible but this is true about everything, not just psychology.

Yeah it certainly feels that way. It's just another form of self help these days. Every book is the same they just insert "studies" to fit a narrative

case in point

You literally do not know why science is. You asking for metaphysical explanations from empirical research. You’re asking fof absolute definitions from a social institution.
You’re asking for science to conform to your a priori understanding of reality.

In as long as a study is falsifiable, verifiable and provides empirical research, it is science. You don’t want science, you want Metaphysics.

Is your point that psychology carries with it the same kind of epistemic weight of Newtonian physics or physics in general? Because thats a smoking hot take.

Newton absolutely had reasoning for his laws. Why the fuck else would he mention apples?

>GUYS I QUANTIFIED ALL THE LIFE ON EARTH WITHOUT DEFINING WHAT 'LIFE' IS FIRST
>".....why?"
>WHO CARES, I JUST USED MY QUANTIFICATION SCHEMES TO ALTER ALL THE ECOSYSTEMS OF ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET AND MASSIVELY DISRUPT THE BIOSPHERE
>"Dude! Shouldn't you understand what you're even doing before you go applying computer programs to it and then rearranging it based on your arbitrary computer programs?!"
>WHAT?? THIS IS SCIENCE

Death toll: Everyone

Oh, so tell me what should we base sour definition for life on? Abstract, metaphysical ideas or empirical data?
Cause let me tell you, no amount of anstract thinking will make you reach the current biological definitions for life.

>HEY GUYS, THE SUN RISES AND SETS SO LIKE THE EARTH IS STATIC AND THE HEAVENS REVOLVE AROUND US
>well, we dont really have the data to back that up, shouldnt we try to run some tests and...
>I CAN DO IT ALL WITH MY MIND AND LOGIC ALONE!

How are you missing the point? The point is that you're fiddling with something very fragile that you don't understand, NOT that some other method of understanding is necessarily better.

>>psychology
>like in any other science

Attached: t'es sérieux.png (500x338, 44K)

And you’re not getting the point that the effort of science is not that it has the answers a priori but that it’s a reliable method to the acquisition of the answer. The science of mind cant start with an answer of what consciousness is, it has to arrive at that answer through rigorous empirical research. The conclusions might even be that consciousness is nothing but a linguistic construct and that nothing can ever properly situate or establish it.

You just said a bunch of metaphysical shit, including the presumption itself that empirical findings, let alone quantified computerized ones like your hack colleagues do, would lead to "answers."

More likely it will only lead to more self-referential bullshit, as evidenced by the fact that infinite increases in research and computing power has not only achieved nothing in your field in half a century, but probably regressed human knowledge by bowling over subtler inquiries with graphing and quantifying autism.

Like most of your colleagues your claim not to have a metaphysics is a massive metaphysical presumption, usually of materialism and epiphenomenalism. And regardless of whether it might yield answers ultimately, you're nuking people's fucking brains by being coupled with the pharma industry. You're a useful idiot.

If you’re definition of consciousness cant be falsified that it’s not science and it’s the case that most philosophic definitions of consciousness aren’t. The solution for the behavorists was to deny its existence completely. There is no mind, no consciousness! Yet guess what refutate the behavorits? It wasnt yet another definition of consciousness. It was legit empircal data that pointed towards the exitence of some controlling, processing unit that is underlies behavior.

>You just said a bunch of metaphysical shit, including the presumption itself that empirical findings, let alone quantified computerized ones like your hack colleagues do, would lead to "answers."
Oh how novel, “the rejection of metaphysics it istelf metaphysical”. The proper way to reject metaphysics is to leave it alone, which is what science does. The “answers” in science are always provisional, always contigent on the empirical data.

>More likely it will only lead to more self-referential bullshit, as evidenced by the fact that infinite increases in research and computing power has not only achieved nothing in your field in half a century, but probably regressed human knowledge by bowling over subtler inquiries with graphing and quantifying autism.
Yeah, this is how i know you’re a complete dilettante
m.youtube.com/watch?v=jsp1KaM-avU
m.youtube.com/watch?v=YRF5sqx6seU
ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind/transcript?language=en
sk.sagepub.com/video/the-malleability-of-memory-a-conversation-with-elizabeth-loftus
The last one here has literally changed the law forever due to how reliable studies on the misinformation have been.
People like you are complete charlatans who know nothing of science and speak from the position of ideology

im not the user you are responding. the vids you are putting are interesting and nice. but that is not the psychiatry of "you are crazy because....
in fact, is psychiatry devote only to this kind of thing, anybody would have anything against psychiatry. you can understand it or not, but psychiatry are saying what is conscience when they give you pills. the guy is right. the rejection of metaphysics is not giving pills to somebody.

But psychiatry is not the end-all of contemporary psychology. The attack in the OP explicitly states Psychology

what say psychology about the "you are crazy because"... i dont understand well your post.

what do you mean by the psychiatry of "you are crazy because," user? I don't quite understand

if you say to somebody how they can feel better, it have an implicit metaphysical claim. maybe sounds a little too rethoric, but i think is true.

the part of mental disease or mental disorders.

In contemporary psych “crazy” isn’t used. Mental disorders are classified as such when 1) the individual is considered a threat to others or to himself 2) when the individual seeks out help due to problems deemed psychological in nature.
Mental disorders are classified according to established patterns of behaviors and responses. There are drugs that provide improvements when it comes to one or more symptoms but they come with other conscious effects. You’re suppose to take them along with therapy and work you’re way out of them. You’re not suppose to just take them indefinitely and everything will magically fixed. This is a psychiatry strawman.

Not if “betted” is operationally defined. Most therapists will even ask you what you mean by “getting better”.

Everybody understands basically what 'crazy' means though. Schizos are crazy. Bipolar people are crazy during mania.

i know crazy is not used, but is just a change of word, not of concept.
you have a mental disorder because you are considered a threat to others or to yourself. you dont see pretty weak the claim?.
i think even a child can see it. and for that,psychiatry and psychology will always look like a pseudscience.

so psychiatry will do what the patience want?. you dont have any notion of what is better?.

No, that’s what YOU see and what you project unto others. A lot of regular people out in the streets suffer from these conditions and you wouldn’t even tell if they’re properly managed and treated.

It’s a change of paradigm. We no linger treat people with disorders like malignant beast to be kept off from society.
>you have a mental disorder because you are considered a threat to others or to yourself you dont see pretty weak the claim?
How is it a weak claim? It’s a disorder because it doesn’t conform to expected behavior and normancy. You are applying a qualitative judgemnt to the concept of disorders. Disorder is a behavioral descriptor. Whether you can live a “good” and “fulfilling” life with a disorder is of no concern. But you are harming others and yourself, then society demands you to be treated and therefore psyciatry is the science that treats it. If you want to criticize the social conditions that lead to that, go ahead, but then you’re not talking science.

Obviously there are notions, eberybody has one. That’s just it though, EVERYBODY has one, and they’re all different to some degree. What you think is better is different from others. The physical idea is simply to lead to neuro-chemical equlibrium and homeostasis. But if YOU, the patient, dont want that, then who’s gonna make you?
You can only get “better” if you YOU want to therefore better is always contigent.
But there is an idea of physical/biological well-being that psychology aims for, but this isn’t what is socially meant by being “good” or “happy” or whatever because all of thise things are mental constructs.

if i understand you well, you basically are saying the society make a science to treat the people who are harming others or themselves.
how you want this is not view like a pseudsciendce (or something worst)?. its impossible.

>It’s a disorder because it doesn’t conform to expected
>conform to expected
>expected
i can say so many things, really. but i appreciate your honesty. you are like the publicists who say his work is to "help people to decide". so many cynicism is too much to handle.

>but then you’re not talking science.
of course not. in the same vein, disorders will never be science because the same thing.
the basis of your "science" is the "expected behaviour".
society and only society make the expected behaviour.

>But there is an idea of physical/biological well-being that psychology aims for,
that is the metaphysical claim.

You are almost there.
>If something is true, it is true regardless of observation
>If something is true, it may be limited in its time or place or shape or movement or in any other way, but not in its truthfulness.
>If the truthfulness of something is independent from observation, then the observation of its truthfulness is likewise independent from its truthfulness
>Whether or not we recognize something as true is a matter of our perception of the thing
>Our perception of the thing is independent of the thing
>Our perception can be false
>If our perception of a true thing is independent of the thing, and our perception can be false, then our recognition of a true thing cannot be credited to our perception.
>While we rely on our perception to recognize a true thing, we cannot rely on our perception to recognize that a thing is true
>If something is true, and we recognize that it is true, we cannot credit its truthfulness nor our recognition of its truthfulness to our perception.
>If something is true, we recognize it as true, we cannot credit the truth or the recognition to our perception, and the truth and our recognition are independent, then the simultaneous state of it being true and our recognizing it as true must either be a matter of chance or else be revealed by some other source.
>As a matter of perception, these two alternatives would be indistinguishable from each other
>however, to the extent we recognize something as true, we act as though it is true
>If we recognize something as true, but it is not true, then our actions will not have the effect we expected
>The quality of truth makes the thing which is true singular, as opposed to all the things which contradict it
>If our recognition of actually true things were dependent solely on chance, we would be wrong
overwhelmingly more often than we would be right
>If it were solely due to chance, our likelihood of being right would be independent of the importance of the truth
>If we could not be certain of the truth, and our chances of actually recognizing the truth were random, and the chance of being right was no greater for issues of life-threatening importance, then we would all die.
>We are not dead
>And since to stay alive we must act in accordance with the truth more often than not in a prejudicial way, then we must by some means recognize the truth more often than not
>Therefore the recognition of independent truth, in spite of our unreliable perception cannot be a matter of chance
>Therefore all recognition of truth is not due to our perception, nor due to the nature of the truthful thing, but is in fact revealed by some external means.
All true knowledge is revelation.

well, you chose to ask a pseud board so the answers here are basically useless

I love this dude

What's your first language bro? You express yourself very well

friendly reminder that there is literally zero evidence of anything other than material interactions in the human mind

Well, answers are always dialetically temporal and indepedent from the truth. No matter who you ask, they're always giving you the pseud answer.

The experience itself is an evidence. However, I do agree that most people make egregious leaps based on this evidence.

this is some neon genesis tier of "deep" philosophy.
If you actually had studied in the scientific field and specifically in an analytical philosophy enviroment, there is no way you would have written that post unironically without ending it in a :3 or some gay shit.

>if i understand you well, you basically are saying the society make a science to treat the people who are harming others or themselves.
how you want this is not view like a pseudsciendce (or something worst)?. its impossible.
Because that’s not whay a pseudoscience is because the scientific method is properly followed and applied to the questions of this science. Biology, physics, chemistry and literally any other science all depend upon a contigent definition of what it is they studies which is socially accept. This is unique to psychiatry, also this is a specification here because this not what all psychology is.

>the basis of your "science" is the "expected behaviour".
society and only society make the expected behaviour.
No it’s not. Expected behavior is empirical, studies and catalogued. Again, you’re a charlatan and dilettante. If 99% people react to a certain stimulus X within the range of 2-4 seconds than that is an empircally, scientifically established EXPECTED BEHAVIOR. If someone react to the same stimulus at 9s instead of the expected 2-4s (as established by empirical data) then the science of disorder attempts to find the cause of that deviance.

>that is the metaphysical claim.
No, it’s not because it’s based on operational definitions contigent upon established data and social practices. It is subject to change along with adavcnes in the understanding of the physical/biological. Try again.

Phrenology at least has some scientific basis though. It's only been 'discarded' because 'muh racism'.

>Because that’s not whay a pseudoscience is because the scientific method is properly followed and applied to the questions of this science. Biology, physics, chemistry and literally any other science all depend upon a contigent definition of what it is they studies which is socially accept.

Let me rewrite this, jesus.

Because that’s not what a pseudoscience is, because the scientific method is properly followed and applied to the questions of this science. Biology, physics, chemistry and literally any other science all depend upon a contigent definition of what it is they study, which is socially accepted.

im an spaniard. i suppose that is sarcastic. sorry. im pure shit in english. i can read it but i cant write it.

>analytical philosophy

Please, the only thing worse than a naive materialist is an analytic "philosopher."

Attached: 1560181051533.jpg (89x125, 2K)

Nah it wasn't sarcasm, I was being sincere. Just surprised you get such complex posts across while having wobbly English grammar.

please abort yourself.

anything other than materialism requires you to just make things up

Nice refutation, buddy

>i can say so many things
No, you can’t.
Expected behavior is a concept dependent on the contigency of experience, aka, empirical data. In the past this has been situated in social construals of such behavior, but these behaviors can (and are) studied scientifically nowadays and contemporary psychology uses these empirical findings and not the social notions.

believe whatever you want to believe. if you want to call it science, call it science.
a science with the basis of expected behaviour is something i want far away from me and the people i love. live your scientific lief all you want.

Attached: 1536463824732.jpg (1311x438, 162K)

materialists
>ok let's split atoms to see what matter is!
people who make fun of materialism
>uhhh MATERIALISM IS SO DUMB LMAO

I don’t have to believe anything. Im using actual arguments situated in what science is and how it is conducted and have provided empirical proof of its methodology, advances and utility and the existing research.
>a science with the basis of expected behaviour is something i want far away from me and the people i love. live your scientific lief all you want.
And here you are with nothing but emotive responses.
You dont know what the definition of pseudoscience is, you dont know how science is conducted and you’re afraid of it for no explicit reason.

you first say the disorder is for "people who are hurting others or themselves", now you say is because empirical data. go with your bullshit to another place. fuck off. first you have the people who hurt others, only afer that, the emprical data. you say... and i quote you "society demands you to be treated "

a word to the wise is enough.

friendly reminder that life can only be described as a chemical process, anything else is wild speculation that violates the evidence at hand

instead of pretending to know the history of science, you should read some of its most famous texts sometime

Attached: E.A.Burtt.jpg (348x381, 71K)

how is trying to impose the "expected behavior" onto others not a social concept? you are making a claim that the normative behavior is desirable which is contingent to the temporal social expectations? any attempt to regulate behavior is inherently social.

can you psych freaks stop being so disingenuous and admit that you just want an unfettered pass to power trip others?

Not Wrong!

They aren’t logically exclusive.
>you first say the disorder is for "people who are hurting others or themselves", now you say is because empirical data.
You hurting others is empirical. I dont know what you’re even saying anymore.

Disorders aren’t just deviances because everyone is deviant to some degree. If disorders were based solely on deviances then there would be an infinite number of them. In order to be a disorder it has to be a problem. A problem here being the possibility of harm (to others or yourself).

Is that clear enough for you?

If you are only looking for matter, what exactly do you expect to find?

But life can't be described as a chemical process.

let me know when you've managed to find something else, then we can look into it.

Hurting others cannot be empirical if hurting itself cannot be empirically defined.

Attached: 1495113434376.jpg (400x540, 50K)

>how is trying to impose the "expected behavior" onto others not a social concept?
Never said impose. Try to find me saying that anywhere. Science here asks the “why” they aren’t behaving expectedly.

>you are making a claim that the normative behavior is desirable which is contingent to the temporal social expectations?
Nope, never made that claim. In fact, said the opposite. If someone wants to get “better” they have to define for themselves. The biological/physical notion of well-being is a observation/behaviorist one. Not a prescriptive one.

>any attempt to regulate behavior is inherently social.
Yes, but the means to do so can be scientific if they follow the scientific method and produce reliable/predictable results. The same way that any attempt to regulate physical behavior of bodies is social because there is no scientific reason to do anything ever.

>can you psych freaks stop being so disingenuous and admit that you just want an unfettered pass to power trip others?
Nice? Psychoanalysis you made there about another person’s motivation and drive. Care to offer your methodology as to how you concluded this?

the basis of your science is the people who harm others (or themselves,) and how control them. you apply the scientific method to control and restrain this people. or to help them, if you want to put it that way.
i dont know, if you apply the scientific method to... i dont know, to how torture people better... you can say is a science. but is a bullshit science anyway. science is not the ultimate truth. now go slap the mind of a cow.

>metaphysical
>transcendental

Attached: 1537064083363.jpg (782x788, 321K)

>itt some spaniard tries to convince a bunch of ca. 1940s anglo positivists that postpositivism is a thing

lma o

I have--life, time, being, order, beauty, harmony, thought, mind, sensation, memory, truth, language, math, the list goes on. Qualities cannot be defined by matter.

Oh, but it is. You wanna hear about the very basically established medical theory of the three types of pain and the very hard science behind them? Or is biology and medicine also too much of a pseudoscience for you?

Is laziness a disorder?

...

>Im using actual arguments
kek. Still waiting to hear them you illiterate mongol

>hard science
The very fact that you are using differentiating terms like "hard" and "soft" science (which themselves don't have strong objective definitions) should be your first hint that there is something missing in your understanding.

>the basis of your science is the people who harm others (or themselves,) and how control them.
“Control” them? According to who? Nobody is trying to control bipolars or depressives. The aim of the science is to provide the means by which these people can find solutions to the problems cause by these conditions in their lives and others.

>you apply the scientific method to control and restrain this people. or to help them, if you want to put it that way.
We are long passed the days of mental institutions. Most of those places are now judicial institutions to keep people who are “criminally” deviant which is another matter altogether.

>i dont know, if you apply the scientific method to... i dont know, to how torture people better... you can say is a science. but is a bullshit science anyway. science is not the ultimate truth. now go slap the mind of a cow.
What the fuck are you even on? This isn’t 1955 anymore. Mental illnesses are socially acceptable and medical conditions. People seek out help. A housewife with depression isn’t physical restrained anymore. You guys are fucking boomers with some weird fucking concepts about psychiatry straight out of Foucault. Those criticisms were fair and society has changed accordingly and is still changing.

>Never said impose. Try to find me saying that anywhere. Science here asks the “why” they aren’t behaving expectedly.
psychiatry is the pseudoscience of treatment. the "why" is science of neuroscience. so yes, it is inherently imposing. example: psychiatry prescribes lithium for schizo patients because it works. neuroscience thinks that schizo is caused by dopamine or some bullshit.

>Nope, never made that claim. In fact, said the opposite. If someone wants to get “better” they have to define for themselves. The biological/physical notion of well-being is a observation/behaviorist one. Not a prescriptive one.
so, if you have a patient who says that he wants to kill himself to get better. would you allow him to kill himself then?

it's against the law. it's clearly prescriptive based on empirical data which is used to create a narrative that you impose on others.

>Yes, but the means to do so can be scientific if they follow the scientific method and produce reliable/predictable results. The same way that any attempt to regulate physical behavior of bodies is social because there is no scientific reason to do anything ever.
i don't dispute that psycharity is an extremely potent pseudoscience. it does produce predictable and reliable results, yet it's vacuous of any actual scientific basis. it is entirely based on socialized data interpretation.
this is the difference between medicine and psych. you treat a cut with antibiotics because bacteria exists and so on. in psych, you treat a mental condition (which in itself is unintelligible, but that's a separate discussion) based on social expectations for mental conditions.
>Nice? Psychoanalysis you made there about another person’s motivation and drive. Care to offer your methodology as to how you concluded this?
Exactly my point? It's bullshit.

It's an open question whether qualities actually exist (as in qualia) or whether they're just manifestations of particular organizations of quanta. You're misunderstanding and mysticizing the items on your list, and even if you think physicalism is unduly assumptive (it isn't, because matter/energy is all that has been apparent so far) you should recognize how assumptive you are being.

The way you wrote this makes it sound like "truth" is some object in the noumenal world. Could you give an example of "a true thing"?When we say a statement is true we mean that it is in accordance with our perception of reality. It doesn't matter if it's "actually" in accordance with "real" reality, all that we know to exist is appearances.

No. It’s not. There’s a whole catalogue of disorders if you havent heard. You may wanna peruse it, the methodology and criteria is very transparent.

Learn to read then.

Not it’s not. Hard and soft sciences are social terms that refer to something in particular and everyone understands what it means. I used it as an emphasize, it doesnt mean I agree with the distinction, and you are using them now as a detractor, like calling out a grammar error, to avoid the argument in that post.

Why isn't laziness a disorder if it causes me harm?

Holy fuck this post, stay away from philosophy it clearly didn't take well to your diseased brain

>matter/energy is all that has been apparent so far
Big if true, good thing it's a nonsense statement loaded with your pet presuppositions.

Stick to engineering and app development, kiddo.

damn I'm glad we don't have philosophers running society. We'd have a bunch of untreated schizos and bipolar freak running around shitting on themselves and killing children because you all would be too concerned with whether a child's pain can be "defined."

t. Calvin Candie

Attached: djangounchained_620_101112.jpg (620x538, 70K)

>Learn to read then.
You've got to write them first. Be brave.

Nutters should just be shot through the back of the head

There's literally not one morsel of contradictory argument in this post. How pathetic. Triggered?

Gonna need you to do some more debugging on the applet, Internet Philosopher King of Materialism. You won't have any time for browsing /r/ifuckinglovescience and listening to Sam Harris podcasts this week..

This is cognitive dissonance caviar. You probably think calculus solves Xeno's paradoxes.

flippant but pertinent and accurate description of the Modern crisis

>psychiatry is the pseudoscience of treatment. the "why" is science of neuroscience. so yes, it is inherently imposing. example: psychiatry prescribes lithium for schizo patients because it works. neuroscience thinks that schizo is caused by dopamine or some bullshit.
You have 0 idea what a pseudoscience is. Nothing that You’s saying makes psychiatry a pseudoscience. In fact, you’re showing its mechanistic and empirical process. Lithium help shizos, neuroscience shows why, boom thanks science.

>so, if you have a patient who says that he wants to kill himself to get better. would you allow him to kill himself then?
>it's against the law. it's clearly prescriptive based on empirical data which is used to create a narrative that you impose on others.

>it’s against the law
Okay, so you admit that preventing suicide isn’t something derived from the science itself but from the law. So this point has nothing to do with psychiatry itself.

>i don't dispute that psycharity is an extremely potent pseudoscience. it does produce predictable and reliable results, yet it's vacuous of any actual scientific basis. it is entirely based on socialized data interpretation.
Again you have no idea what pseudoscience is. You may want to look up a definition.

>this is the difference between medicine and psych. you treat a cut with antibiotics because bacteria exists and so on. in psych, you treat a mental condition (which in itself is unintelligible, but that's a separate discussion) based on social expectations for mental conditions.
Wrong. Do you read or just blatantly post whatever you want? It’s not about social expectations, it’s about behavioral and biological ones, aka, empirically based data. Brains are suppose to have X balance of Y, Z chemicals. This one doesn’t. When Y, Z chemicals are unbalanced they result in W behavior. You treat it with G medicine, W subsides, and this brain now operates according to the empirically established norm.

Is this so hard for you to get?

You need to read it again, more slowly. I address your points.

No, I'm pointing it out because thoughtless semantics betray inconsistencies between the analytical mind and the experiential mind. If the hard and soft sciences are equally scientific, how can either be recognized as either hard or soft. You say "everybody understands," but that's not scientific; what is it that everyone understands? What is the material difference that allows us to perceive these fields of inquiry as related to their own kind and distinct from the other kind?

>You probably think calculus solves Xeno's paradoxes.

I want to tell you that at least one person understood this absolutely devastating insult.

Are the skulls different? Yes or no?

As opposed to now, when abortion is killing hundreds of thousands a year, a significant portion of the youth population is put on amphetamines, a growing number are now encouraged to take hormone blockers in preparation for self-mutilation, and suicide is now the leading cause of death among young adult white males? And this is just what we are doing in our own countries.

Thank (you)

Hard and soft sicences are social distinctions, not ontological ones. That theory is hard as in there arent people like you doubting the theory everywhere like you are with basic psychological theories that are ontologically just as sound but dont have the same social reputation.

Not that user. What do you think psuedoscience is?

>Hard and soft sicences are social distinctions

No, they are epistemic distinctions.

Tell me how philosophers would fix those "problems" and not just debate pointlessly while everyone's life is made worse. Do we ban abortion and let women (who will seek it out anyway) die? Do we stop a tiny portion of children with gender dysphoria from taking puberty blockers so that they don't kill themselves? Is the reason young white men are killing themselves because of psychology, or materialism, or mistakes by the scientific community?

>no amount of abstract thinking will make you reach the current biological definitions for life
Biology does not have any definitions for life. It only has traits which it uses to try and recognize life, but which cannot be applied consistently or universally to all things we might consider life. Is a virus alive? Is a prion? If a prion is alive, can we say that meme is alive? If a meme is alive, is a culture alive? I know this scale here seems absurd, but try to draw the line, biologically. I promise you, you cannot.

Well first of all you're assuming that there is an actual boundary between the noumenal and phenomenal (as opposed to them being helpful thought-categories). So, if we classify 'truth' as a concept, why would we think concepts themselves don't exist noumenally? Isn't any appearance generated by an actual? The question you mean to ask is whether the concept 'truth' -describes- anything going on in the concrete.

I think it obviously does, or what would be the point in conversations like this. Why attempt to convince eachother of anything if there is no truth independent of our subjective perceptions? It's self-detonating of course... Even the claim that truth is subjective is itself an objective truth claim. It's valid to say that most knowledge is provisional (outside of the most apodictic truths i.e. knowing you exist), but lack of perfect knowledge is not equivalent to the impossibility objective truth.

Please provide the actual epistemic distinction and i’ll guarantee that its based on social assumptions made about the nature of the sciences and not their actual ontologiy.

continuum fallacy

Here’s a basic definition: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method

>Biology does not have any definitions for life.
Okay, retard.

Based anti-psych anons

>So what if we like cancer is a range and I only have parts of it?”
You lost every MD outside of psych here.

How can you miss the point so terribly? Everyone dies. Resources are finite. We know, from your precious science, that materially speaking, we can do nothing about these two realities. Everything else we do, we do in light of the knowledge that we will die, and so will everyone else. You complained about people dying, and yet your "solutions" actively kill people rather than leaving death to nature. You do not eliminate death; you merely change the cause. So--what in your scientific inquiry can tell us what the best way to die is?

Schrodinger has an essay about this
whatislife.ie/downloads/What-is-Life.pdf

Towards the end he focuses in on the fact that life seems to circumvent the normal entropic production of disorder, it maintains a high level of order. The whole thing is interesting

Yet you're not able to argue against me for some reason?

Zeno's paradoxes? Paradoxes are just thought experiments -- they don't occur in the concrete. If something appears to be an actual paradox it's because you're lacking knowledge.

It's not my fallacy, but yours. Each of the options presented is discrete. But as much as you can distinguish them from each other, your biological definitions of life do not allow you to say which are alive and which are not alive, without first taking up an unscientific axiom. You should avoid calling things a fallacy, unless you actually understand what the fallacy is.

Provide it.

You cannot argue rationally with people stuck in cognitive dissonance. That's the whole problem with it. Case in point--I did provide an argument. I presented Xeno's paradoxes. And, in perfect demonstration, you dismissed them categorically simply for being paradoxes, without even considering their historical importance to this exact conversation.

I'll see if I get to it, but your summary is not encouraging. The name is What is Life, but your account makes it seem like he only describes its behavior and mechanisms.

Schrodinger is a physicist so that's the angle he's coming from.

The best way to die is the way that improves the quality of life. If that means extending your life, treating issues like arthritis and heart disease so you can play with your grandkids and go boating, and then keeling over in a hospital bed with plenty of morphine running through your veins, then so be it. No one will force you to do those things.
See, you're too concerned with pedantry and word games to see what normal people want. Misdiagnosed children, the predatory aspects of the pharmaceutical industry, and issues with how psychologists define different disorders doesn't make science wrong or useless. Science doesn't need to answer questions about life's purpose for people to justify its existence. And I know what you mean by "leaving death to nature," my only response is that with scientific advancement we get to choose our deaths and dying "naturally" sucks ass (do you want to get eaten by an alligator or die of thirst in the desert?) but for someone who cares so much about definitions you really fell for the appeal to nature. Even animals use medicine and treat their wounds.

Nice cope. You should be a politician.

The point is that the biological definitions do describe meaningful differences on the spectrum. We can certainly say a lump of charcoal isn't alive while a flower is. Biologists would be the first to admit that viruses occupy a 'greyer' area, but such examples only strengthen the notion that life occurs due to complex organizations and interactions of stuff that isn't alive (a biological definition).

What is your alternative standard of defining life by the way? Or do you prefer to leave it romantically mysterious so that you can swaddle yourself in mysticism?

From a basic biology textboom: All groups of living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to stimuli, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing.

This disqualifies all inanimate things because they lack at very least regulation and reproduction. Memes and culture dont reproduce, they are distributed and spread by organism, they do not have the capacity for this function themselves.

>You probably think calculus solves Xeno's paradoxes.
yikes
you shouldn't be able to study metaphysics unless you have studied mathematics

Attached: Let+no+one+ignorant+of+geometry+enter+here.jpg (960x720, 41K)

agreed, read morris kline and come back when you aren't retarded

I'm not assuming the boundary, I'm saying the guy I was responding to is. I'm saying the concept of noumenon should be thrown out.

Is historical importance a logical standard now?

You're ducking. You didn't provide an argument, and I explained why I dismiss paradoxes as evidence of anything concrete. You explained nothing.

That's fine, I know it's much easier to label me a cogdis zombie than rise to the challenge.

>quality of life
>quality
If you're using it as your primary metric, it's not a game to ask what it means.

Read my post again, more slowly. Give an example of a true thing, both when our perception of it is true and when false.

Doctors allow you to define it yourself. You are not forced to take medication. That is exactly why psychologists include the whole "patient must seek out treatment" as apart of the definition of a disorder. It is why cancer patients are given options. It is why gender therapists do not force pills down the throats of kids using a funnel. Maybe its unsatisfying, but there is no concrete definition. The world is more about feels over reals than you may think. Reason should be slave to the passions and so forth.

>See, you're too concerned with pedantry and word games to see what normal people want. Misdiagnosed children, the predatory aspects of the pharmaceutical industry, and issues with how psychologists define different disorders doesn't make science wrong or useless
It does make depression rise to such a point that it's the leading disease burden in the world. That means more people miss out on productive lives due to the very recent expanse of a psychological disorder than the people who miss out on productive lives through cancer or heart attack or TB or malaria or AIDS. That's just one psychological disorder's recent expansion. These are not expansions which have helped the majority, and they cut down on life years through medication and overdiagnosis/prescription faster than smoking two packs a day does. In the past twenty years we've created a system that has reversed everything cutting down on child mortality has done for life expectancy, and then shaved a few extra years of productive ability off the top of that too. If we had those kinds of epidemiological results on cigarettes or alcohol, they would be too dangerous to tax and possession of them would be equivalent to holding a kg of heroin. But since it's performed by doctors, plenty of tax money going both ways on killing populations faster than ever.