Originally Posted by
holli4pirating
How is the data "flawed"? Is it possible to collect unflawed data, or could we ever figure out what is and how to collect unflawed data? What would count as unflawed data? If we could, could psychology become science? What changes must be made to "psychology" to make it a science?
The data is flawed, partly because of how it was collected, partly because whom it was collected from, partly because of the size of the sample it was collected from. There are too many facets and too many variables for me to begin to comprehend what needs to change. I mean, there are what, three DIFFERENT paradigms within 'psychology' I wouldn't know where to begin for each one to be honest.
I must be ignorant about astrology; can you explain how it flies in much of the face of physics (I do know some physics, so I should be able to follow you there).
Astrologists believe that individual stars and planets can have an affect on us. Collectively they hold us together, individually they just can't have a measurable effect.
One could produce astrological evidence, couldn't one? Astrology must make some claims, right? And if it makes any correct claims at all, it has evidence. Again, I though my personality example was evidence for astrology, but I could easily be mistaken.
Just because they make claims doesn't mean they have any evidence to support them. You would have to establish a cause an effect relationship, your personality may well just be chance.
I see you saying that definitions of science include that it must be useful, but why is useful included? Why do you include it in your definition?
Science must explain something, as far as I'm concerned, there is very little that isn't useful to someone in some way. I think a lot of pseudoscience isn't useful, it just happens to 'fit' the product or idea.
Thank you for clearing up the dogmatic bit. I like your definition, and agree that science should, by that definition, not be dogmatic. (I'll leave it to you to tell us why, unless someone asks me directly.)
"if it actually works, there's no reason to tell you how many people found out it works out of the 15 tested, if you see what I mean?" - Isn't that how you know it works? It sounds like you're talking about the manipulation of statistics to fabricate "evidence," which goes back to the idea that a scientific claim must have "enough" of "the right kind of evidence" to support it.
I do think a scientific claim should have enough of the right kind of evidence. I could probably establish a casual relationship between the colour of your carpet and how many times you blink during an average day, it would be a completely useless and weak relationship and there would be no cause an effect, but there would still be some link. That is not useful, it would be based on poor evidence and it would basically rely on chance.