• john89
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    It depends on the “science of the times.” Crazy concept, I know.

    It’s why psychology is considered a “soft science” and doesn’t deserve the authority that hard sciences have.

    • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s a crazy concept to apply “science of the times” to only psychology, but not every other branch of science and medicine, as there are huge holes in understanding everywhere.

      I have no idea what sciences would be considered “hard” in this definition.

      • john89
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not really. Psychology has a massive reproducibility issue right now.

          • john89
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Psychology stands out with how many results are not reproducible.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              While in physics, we can fundamentally change our theoretical understanding of very core concepts without impacting the reproducibility of experiments, and any new theory must also satisfy existing, reproducible experiments.

              Same goes for chemistry, computer science, geology, etc. You can discover differences in core, fundamental concepts without invalidating existing experiments.