Conversation

Cinder
@Triquetrea
Astrophysics and psychology share a common flaw, however: a lack of instruments with sufficient sophistication to measure what needs to be measured. And limited opportunity for direct observation and, hence, for falsification.
1
1
Cinder
@Triquetrea
Physics is far more sophisticated and mature than psychology, but there is still human error, measurement error, unknowable variables... The farther you get from our atmosphere, the worse. The more erratic something moves, the worse. Etc.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Cinder
@Triquetrea
I think that's wrong, and presumes a scientistic model of the world. The problem comes from scientism, not science. "Listen to the science!" "But the science is flawed, and the researchers might be biased, and we might be measuring the wrong thing..." "Listen anyway!"
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Cinder
@Triquetrea
What is "a science" to you two? Perhaps we are disagreeing on definitions? I can give ground there. I am perfectly OK putting psych in a different category than, say, chemistry, but that's already the default position. Do you mean, perhaps, "as if it were settled science"?
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Cinder
@Triquetrea
Given that there is a certain direct link to ontology and a range of other topics that are, fundamentally, outside the bounds of science, I can agree to that. But I think there are many more base applications of psychology that don't transcend the borders of the fallen world.
Twitter Web Client
Cinder
@Triquetrea
Replying to
@Triquetrea
And inasmuch as we don't try to observe the unobservable, psychology can be as much of a science as anything else. Yet, we are very bad at observing most of the variables, so it isn't very much of a science. As to whether or not it someday will be, who can say?
1