As far as I'm concerned any study or analysis which attempts to be as rational as possible is scientific.

Rationality is insufficient, though. Pure mathematics attempts to be 'as rational as possible', but maths is not a science, per se. You can create a perfectly rational argument for something which there is no prospect of falsifying through evidence or observation. So 'tangibility' or 'testability' is an essential ingredient - the proposition has to concern something for which particular kinds of evidence applies, otherwise it ain't scientific.

I mean, clearly they [political science, sociology, economics, psychology] can be studied in more systematic ways than art or literature, but something tells me they fall short of the label of science. — rickyk95

The behavioral sciences have taken some deserved hits to their reputations lately. Valid results should be duplicable, for instance. A survey found that many psychology results could not be duplicated. As it happens, a lot of research in the biological sciences (which are "harder" than behavioral science) hasn't been duplicated, either. Good science is hard whether it's physics or economics.

Human beings are one of the main problems in behavioral science. Studies of behavior in rats and pigeons have produced solid, replicable findings about how rat and pigeon' brains work. Many of those findings are applicable to human beings. If we conducted research on human beings in exactly the same way we conduct research on rats and pigeons, we might nail down some answers to difficult questions. That kind of research has (quite properly) been ruled out of bounds.

Even a relatively small ability to think; even limited freedom of will; and that softest and most elusive topic of research -- mind -- all get in the way.

Take for instance research into cooperative behavior in dogs and monkeys. Researchers discovered that both dogs and monkeys pay attention to the rewards their cooperating partners are getting. If some dogs see that they are getting no rewards (while other dogs are), they stop cooperating with the researcher. If monkeys see that their cooperating partners are getting better rewards than they are getting (pieces of apple instead of pieces of cabbage) they stop cooperating. Unexpected end of experiment. What the researchers discovered is that their captive subjects were capable of feeling cheated, and would then not play any more.

It is worth noting that economists generally can not predict economic crashes. Or, at least, that is my understanding. They can't, or they haven't. Lots of people -- economists and kibitzers -- thought that housing prices were absurdly high in 2006-2007, but nobody predicted near economic collapse and a credit freeze in 2008.

Geologists can't really "experiment" with plate tectonics and earthquakes because the subjects -- these big continental and oceanic plates -- are way too big. They can observe them, however, and make predictions. The world economy is a similar problem: it's too big, too many moving parts, and all those parts are always moving.

A lot of psychology research looks like slop to start with, but even if it is very, very good, there is still the problem that human beings can, and regularly do deliberately misrepresent themselves, can fake cooperation, lie, dissemble, refuse to cooperate, and so on -- all of which undermines the validity of psychological research. Any study which involves self-reporting is practically doomed.

Studies of sexual behavior (like the use of condoms, frequency of sexual encounters, preferred sexual activities, etc.) that are based on self-reporting are notoriously unreliable. As it happens, it is quite difficult to observe all of these behaviors. Most people don't like having a note-taker in their bedroom while they hare having sex. Where observation has occurred, the findings are often quite different than self-reporting.

"If you are wrong, you were right."

To me this is a pretty good way to communicate the beauty of science. You can only be wrong in the present if you committed yourself in the past to a risky prediction. You were right in that commitment and risk. A scientist lets his theories do his dying for him.

In other words, the scientist (ideally) takes the risk of clarity. Popper noted that the Freudian psychoanalysts and Marxists whom he knew could always find a way to interpret anything as a confirmation of their theory. Because these theories were indestructible in that sense, they were also trivial or empty in another sense.

The prediction is either wrong or right. The gadget does or does not work. This is (ideally) publicly accessible. It is exoteric, naked.

One of things I love about Popper was his acknowledgement of the irrational, creative element in science. The source of the hypothesis doesn't matter. Science (as he conceives it) is a source-independent criterion for hypotheses. I think the criterion itself is justified pragmatically and aesthetically. As Darth notes, science is heroic. There's an asceticism or warrior-like courage in making ideas specific enough (usually quantitative) for refutation and abandonment.

<shrug>
Mathematics is certainly not an empirical science. And it has a different notion of evidence. (Not just proof but also counterexample.) Even through the first half of the twentieth century, authors routinely referred to "the science of mathematics" and "the science of logic". Maybe it is worth calling attention to a shared sense of rigor.

As it happens, it is quite difficult to observe all of these behaviors. Most people don't like having a note-taker in their bedroom while they hare having sex. — Bitter Crank

Holy smokes, that sounds great!! Actually, I agree with everything you said except for this.

There's an asceticism or warrior-like courage in making ideas specific enough (usually quantitative) for refutation and abandonment. — t0m

Definition of "clarity" - Expressing what you mean in a way that makes it obvious you’re wrong

Science is modeling the reality around us in a systematic fashion.

An attempt to create an approximate model of the reality we find ourselves in that can be used to more precisely explain observations and make reliable prediction. The aim is to use refined and proven methods for doings so. These methods can vary across different braches of science but some have proven themselves reliable so there are many which overlap.

Science is modeling the reality around us in a systematic fashion.

An attempt to create an approximate model of the reality we find ourselves in that can be used to more precisely explain observations and make reliable prediction. The aim is to use refined and proven methods for doings so. These methods can vary across different braches of science but some have proven themselves reliable so there are many which overlap. — Jeremiah

Sounds good to me. I don't have any disagreements with what you have written.

Whatever turns you on (or off). On several occasions I've found having an audience (they weren't taking notes) to be a nice added feature.

Whatever turns you on (or off). On several occasions I've found having an audience (they weren't taking notes) to be a nice added feature. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, well. I was talking big, but I like my intimate life pretty vanilla pudding. Maybe that's not the right image.

Delete "pudding" and the expression comes out right. Vanilla is the preferred flavor the world over, pretty much.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God. — T Clark

I overlooked replying to this earlier. Yes, those are great lines. I've read the same Mitchell translation. I was just looking it over again, here: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html (for others, since I know you have a copy.)

Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

There is a time for being ahead,
a time for being behind;
a time for being in motion,
a time for being at rest;
a time for being vigorous,
a time for being exhausted;
a time for being safe,
a time for being in danger.

The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.
— Tao

I think quantitative psychology has yielded results that give us insights into our own mentality. For instance, most religious people are against abortion or education level is associated with atheism, etc. — TheMadFool

Those are qualitative assessments, not quantitative and that would be statistics not psychology.

Those are qualitative assessments, not quantitative and that would be statistics not psychology. — Jeremiah

Most religious people are against abortion: This is a quantitative assessment isn't it?

Psychology has to depend on statistics, no?

Most is not a quantitative unit of measurement nor is it the variable of interest.

And name a science that does not use statistics.

Most is not a quantitative unit of measurement nor is it the variable of interest. — Jeremiah

What if I said 90% of people with a college education don't believe in God. Can I rephrase 90% as ''most''?

And name a science that does not use statistics. — Jeremiah

So, psychology is a science then, right?

Still not the variable of interest. Understanding that difference is a common exam question in intro stats courses. Everyone always makes the same mistake you are making, but it is categorical.

Psychology is generally considered a science and I have no good reason to disagree with that.

Still not the variable of interest. Understanding that difference is a common exam question in intro stats courses. Everyone always makes the same mistake you are making, but it is categorical. — Jeremiah

Ok. What would count as a good question of inquiry in psychology?

I have no interest in defending psychology as a science nor do I care if you do or do not consider it one. I suggest you Google it.

What if I said 90% of people with a college education don't believe in God. — TheMadFool

Jeremiah's point is just this: what you are counting here, your data, is categorical rather than itself being quantitative. The fact that you counted doesn't change that. Suppose your data was height: then you could talk about the average height of your population, the average deviation, and so on. What about here? Is there an average belief in God? How much of your population has an unusually big belief in God (more than two or three standard deviations above the mean)?

what you are counting here, your data, is categorical rather than itself being quantitative. — Srap Tasmaner

I may be wrong but how else can we quantify psychology? Can we measure thoughts or emotions in any a way other than how I described it?

I was afraid you would ask that.

Yes, I would think so, but it's not an area I know. Even without getting into neuroscience, there's various ways you might use biometrics, for instance. Personally I'm really interested in this sort of thing, which is in the neighborhood anyway.

Not everything in science is quantifiable, in fact that is why we have the two terms.

So you see my point. There simply is no other way to make psychology scientific or is there? Assuming, of course, that all things science must be quantitative.

However, these types of statistical data can form the basis of qualitative analysis. For instance, knowing most college educated people favor atheism can be used to field theories on why this is the case. Perhaps then, predictions, confirmation or disconfirmation will follow.

Not everything in science is quantifiable, in fact that is why we have the two terms. — Jeremiah

Can you give some examples? Physics, chemistry are entirely mathematical. Biology is following suit, with some difficulty I must say.

Can you give some examples? — TheMadFool

Species of fish, different types of force and even Newton's Laws of Motion are categories. I honestly don't think you know the difference between the two. Infinity is not quantitative, it is not even a number, it is a concept. You can not measure infinity.

Can you give some examples? — TheMadFool

Here are some examples of the quantitative: kilograms & meters per second squared. The actual meaningful measurements themselves. If we say F=ma then that is a quantitative statement, but if we categorize that as Newton's 2nd Law, then that is a categorical statement.

The qualitative (aka categorical) is about making conceptual difference based on the quality of something. Normal force is different than weight force. The fact we can calculate them does not change the conceptual difference.

Jeremiah's point is just this: what you are counting here, your data, is categorical rather than itself being quantitative. The fact that you counted doesn't change that. Suppose your data was height: then you could talk about the average height of your population, the average deviation, and so on. What about here? Is there an average belief in God? How much of your population has an unusually big belief in God (more than two or three standard deviations above the mean)? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm getting a bit lost, but what about this - A very thin layer of material that contains high concentrations of iridium has been found throughout the world in deposits that are dated to about the same age - 65 million years. Iridium is rare on earth, but is found much more often in meteorites. From these observations, geologists, biologists, and astronomers have come to believe that the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other evolutionary lineages 65 million years ago was probably primarily caused by the impact of an asteroid.

That's one of the most interesting and important things I can imagine in terms of understanding our world, but it's value isn't related to any quantitative data.

Can you take another pass at this? I don't disagree with anything here but I'm not sure what the connection is ...