Clearly we can't trust any of them and should immediately dismiss any scientific research that doesn't agree with our already formed opinions.

Why didn't he do like NASA's climate scientists, and claim the original data was discarded when they moved to another building, that the corrected data is all that remains, and the original data cannot be regenerated because of licensing issues with other countries, and to just trust him?

/science just works, beeyotches.

Now if they would do the same kind of research and debunking on the global warming "scientific papers".

Thisbymaster: Now if they would do the same kind of research and debunking on the global warming "scientific papers".

They did. Result: It's real.

Come on, psychology is barely a science as it is.

Thisbymaster: Now if they would do the same kind of research and debunking on the global warming "scientific papers".

Yeah, but that was actual science, not psychology.

dustlesswalnut: Come on, psychology is barely a science as it is.

People might think I'm trolling but...this.

Fark_Guy_Rob: dustlesswalnut: Come on, psychology is barely a science as it is.

People might think I'm trolling but...this.

I'm definitely not trolling. Sure, there are parts of psychology that aren't complete bullshiat, but the vast majority of it is hooey.

Anyone with 'Psych' in their title is absolutely a crook.

/personal experience

How do you tell when a psychologist is making stuff up versus just being a psychologist?

/I kid the psychologists of course, it's only because I have no respect for the field.

pute kisses like a man: saying that psychologists don't perform science is saying you don't know what a psychologist does (or what science is).

It also says, you're probably a douche that could use the help of a doctor of psychology.

/ knows many of psychologists.
// although not a doctor yet, I know one who is working on groundbreaking research on alzyhiemers for her dissertation work. it's already shown some significant results with mice (not ready to be published yet, more testing to do). but, I guess that's not sciency enough for you.

Are there psychologists that perform real science? Of course there are.

The majority of popular psychology is complete bullshiat, though, and the pseudoscientific methods they employ in their research is laughable.

It sounds like your friend is one of the few good ones. Good for her. She needs to tell the rest of her field that they're full of shiat.

dustlesswalnut: Come on, psychology is barely a science as it is.

At the core, any science is simply based on repeatable results and experimentation. If they're doing that then they're scientists. If they're not doing that then they're not scientists. It doesn't matter if their subjects happen to be chemicals, algorithms, or people.

They call it a soft science because they have far less control over experimental conditions than, say, an engineer or a chemist. That makes it a lot harder to come up with scientifically valid experiments and explanations, but it doesn't make the valid ones any less valid.

There's also a certain degree of quackery in any field. If an engineer runs up to you with a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion device you don't automatically dismiss all engineers, so when a psychologist goes off the deep end that's no reason to automatically invalidate all psychologists.

Fubini: repeatable results

If they had them, I wouldn't think they are full of shiat.

Fubini: They call it a soft science because they have far less control over experimental conditions than, say, an engineer or a chemist. That makes it a lot harder to come up with scientifically valid experiments and explanations, but it doesn't make the valid ones any less valid.

But it does mean that a huge number of invalid studies get plastered across all forms of media because they're way more interesting than valid ones.

Fubini: There's also a certain degree of quackery in any field. If an engineer runs up to you with a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion device you don't automatically dismiss all engineers, so when a psychologist goes off the deep end that's no reason to automatically invalidate all psychologists.

Show me some recent psychological advances that matter in any way, shape or form. The field is full of a bunch people with MDs that weren't good enough to get into a real specialty. I know this because I've seen it.

dustlesswalnut: Come on, psychology is barely not a science as it is.

Fixed.

Psychology is nothing but WAGs. Wild-Ass Guesses.

MrEricSir: Thisbymaster: Now if they would do the same kind of research and debunking on the global warming "scientific papers".

They did. Result: It's real.

Oh, you don't know how much shiat that "study" stirred up. Let's just wait until the peer-review completes.

dustlesswalnut: Come on, psychology is barely a science as it is.

It's not so much that it's not a science as that it's sort of in the starting stages of being a science. The analogy to chemistry would be the alchemists around the time of Paraclesus, the analogy to physics would be Galileio and his thought experiments.

Basically, they don't know enough of the big picture yet to really even be able to tell when all the variables are accounted for or not, so they have to kind of wing it and try to fill the gaps with logic.

The fact that they're still basically wrong about everything doesn't mean their work isn't worthy of respect. Sure, they're going to be doing this for another century before they're up to their version of Newton's Laws, but without that century of flailing about we'll get that level of understanding approximately never.

traylor: Oh, you don't know how much shiat that "study" stirred up. Let's just wait until the peer-review completes.

It doesn't matter how many times they repeat the studies, the results will be the same -- and the oil companies that bankroll the country will just shrug it off.

Psychologist and scientific do not belong in the same sentence, ever.

wait there are people with psychology degrees that don't wait tables?

As a Psych grad, I'd have to say some of psychological fields are bullshiat, (social, developmental, clinical, cultural and evolutionary are the ones that I come across that have some batshiat theories). Some others such as experimental, behavioural and neural psychology have more integrity.

To the people in this thread: there's a difference between psychology and psychiatry (the latter requiring an actual medical degree).

That is all.

FerneJohn: To the people in this thread: there's a difference between psychology and psychiatry (the latter requiring an actual medical degree).

That is all.

While there are certainly a number of MDs that become psychiatrists because they want to, quite often it's a back-up specialty that they go into because they failed to get into anything better and the hours are better than family medicine.

@ Geriatric Goodman Brown- Sorry to bring you into this thread, but the duplicate greenlight that I posted in has been taken down, and seeing that I'm not a TFer, I can't see it or post in it anymore.

In response to:
"Go fark yourselves. While my dataGo fark yourselves. While my data was never requested by anyone, it was kept on record should it be requested. You'll also notice that part of any science is replication. Nearly all of my papers had some confirmatory aspect of some other study that was then in turn built upon.

/Published in psychology, medicine, and business.
//Would never dry lab.
///Happens in every field farkholes."

I have no doubt that there are many proper psychological studies published every year, and that there are many psychologists that aren't making shiat up, but those studies don't get reported on because they aren't interesting or clinically valuable.

Real engineers decry complete BS "engineers" that claim their perpetual motion machines are scientific fact, but that rarely happens with psychology.

Also:
Jim_Callahan: It's not so much that it's not a science as that it's sort of in the starting stages of being a science. The analogy to chemistry would be the alchemists around the time of Paraclesus, the analogy to physics would be Galileio and his thought experiments.

Basically, they don't know enough of the big picture yet to really even be able to tell when all the variables are accounted for or not, so they have to kind of wing it and try to fill the gaps with logic.

The fact that they're still basically wrong about everything doesn't mean their work isn't worthy of respect. Sure, they're going to be doing this for another century before they're up to their version of Newton's Laws, but without that century of flailing about we'll get that level of understanding approximately never.

Nimnom: As a Psych grad, I'd have to say some of psychological fields are bullshiat, (social, developmental, clinical, cultural and evolutionary are the ones that I come across that have some batshiat theories). Some others such as experimental, behavioural and neural psychology have more integrity.

So basically if you can do proper randomized experiments (or at least very controlled experiments) then you'll usually get proper science out the other end.

dustlesswalnut: FerneJohn: To the people in this thread: there's a difference between psychology and psychiatry (the latter requiring an actual medical degree).

That is all.

While there are certainly a number of MDs that become psychiatrists because they want to, quite often it's a back-up specialty that they go into because they failed to get into anything better and the hours are better than family medicine.

That's in dire need of a citation.

thorimm: Anyone with 'Psych' in their title is absolutely a crook.

/personal experience

What do you propose we do with soldiers suffering from PTSD or mothers with post-partum depression? Do you even believe those conditions exist?

FerneJohn: That's in dire need of a citation.

I'd love to provide you the name and phone numbers of the 20 now-psychiatrists that I know went into the field because they didn't get into the specialty of their choice, but I respect their right to privacy.

My wife's a doctor and I saw this happen to many of her fellow med students when they were applying for residency positions. Anecdotal? Of course, but from what she says, and what her co-residents say, and what the people I know that had to settle for psych said, it's a very common occurrence.