• john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 个月前

    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
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 个月前

      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@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 个月前

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

          • john89@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 个月前

            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
              ·
              11 个月前

              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.