It doesn’t offend me because I don’t think it’s true. I don’t need to play baseball to know that they guys playing basketball saying it’s baseball are not actually playing baseball. I can observe for myself the difference in the game. Similarly I can observe that psychology fails time and time again to produce objective knowledge which is the intention of all science. You have failed to refute this point and instead try to wave it away by saying:
I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)
directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are. (Also reeks of ad hominem but maybe I’m not qualified to make that judgement here either)
If you can refute how psychology can be a science without producing any objective knowledge maybe I’ll read any works of the philosophy of science that you think will further convince me. I’m currently reading Kant so it’s somewhat adjacent anyways.
This isn’t like understanding a child’s game so I would say your baseball analogy is a false equivalence.
I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)
That isn’t ad hominem. Suggesting that the roots of your misunderstanding is due to your lack of experience or education in the field is not a personal attack. I am also not making an emotional appeal which is an alternate form of ad hominem.
Ad hominem would be if I suggested you couldn’t have an understanding because you are stupid (which I am absolutely in no way suggesting that you are unintelligent). I have not done this. I have suggested your lack of expertise in the field might be a good reason for you to question your own conclusions.
directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are
You dont need to become an expert but if you want to understand what we believe science is this is the place to start as the other place is a terminal degree in a science field which would be silly to suggest. The philosophy of science is the best field for you to get the answers to the uncertainty you have in your understanding
This is also not an example of ad hominem.
Why not read about the philosophy of science to expand your understanding? Why do you need to do it because I proved something to you?
You’ve successfully turned the discussion from being about “can a field which does not produce reproducible results be a scientific field?” to “what are the requirements to judge whether a field is scientific?”
I have a PhD in chemistry, and a good bunch of published scientific articles. Besides that I’ve studied philosophy of science for half a year. I assume that should make me qualified (in your eyes) to reiterate the questions and points made by [email protected]: “Can a field that is largely incapable of producing reproducible results be regarded as scientific?”, “Why do so many fields that are incapable of producing reproducible results insist on being called scientific?”.
That’s the thing you haven’t proven anything, in fact you haven’t given a single argument in favor hat psychology is science. The only thing you said is that psychology is a science because it uses statistical method and the scientific method but that does not make it a science.
There’s too many things to read and too little time to read them so I would appreciate at least you trying to make an argument in your favor, by the time I get to read what you want me to I will forget this argument entirely.
It doesn’t offend me because I don’t think it’s true. I don’t need to play baseball to know that they guys playing basketball saying it’s baseball are not actually playing baseball. I can observe for myself the difference in the game. Similarly I can observe that psychology fails time and time again to produce objective knowledge which is the intention of all science. You have failed to refute this point and instead try to wave it away by saying:
If you can refute how psychology can be a science without producing any objective knowledge maybe I’ll read any works of the philosophy of science that you think will further convince me. I’m currently reading Kant so it’s somewhat adjacent anyways.
This isn’t like understanding a child’s game so I would say your baseball analogy is a false equivalence.
That isn’t ad hominem. Suggesting that the roots of your misunderstanding is due to your lack of experience or education in the field is not a personal attack. I am also not making an emotional appeal which is an alternate form of ad hominem.
Ad hominem would be if I suggested you couldn’t have an understanding because you are stupid (which I am absolutely in no way suggesting that you are unintelligent). I have not done this. I have suggested your lack of expertise in the field might be a good reason for you to question your own conclusions.
You dont need to become an expert but if you want to understand what we believe science is this is the place to start as the other place is a terminal degree in a science field which would be silly to suggest. The philosophy of science is the best field for you to get the answers to the uncertainty you have in your understanding
This is also not an example of ad hominem.
Why not read about the philosophy of science to expand your understanding? Why do you need to do it because I proved something to you?
You’ve successfully turned the discussion from being about “can a field which does not produce reproducible results be a scientific field?” to “what are the requirements to judge whether a field is scientific?”
I have a PhD in chemistry, and a good bunch of published scientific articles. Besides that I’ve studied philosophy of science for half a year. I assume that should make me qualified (in your eyes) to reiterate the questions and points made by [email protected]: “Can a field that is largely incapable of producing reproducible results be regarded as scientific?”, “Why do so many fields that are incapable of producing reproducible results insist on being called scientific?”.
That’s the thing you haven’t proven anything, in fact you haven’t given a single argument in favor hat psychology is science. The only thing you said is that psychology is a science because it uses statistical method and the scientific method but that does not make it a science.
There’s too many things to read and too little time to read them so I would appreciate at least you trying to make an argument in your favor, by the time I get to read what you want me to I will forget this argument entirely.