"Many of the major issues in the psychology field tend to come from overzealous interpretations of the data or people drawing conclusions that aren't exactly supported by the experiments. This happens in all fields of science, and thanks to the scientific method these are usually found fairly regularly and corrected."
What does that even mean? It's a piece of jargon. I've
never found a paper that denied being based on the scientific method.
You've also never heard of any 'replication crisis?' I previously mentioned that food scientists, medical researchers, and psychologists had gotten lots of things wrong. Are you even bothering to read my posts?"This applies to every field of science. They all had to start somewhere."
Anyone practicing a field of pseudoscience like phrenology in the past centuries probably thought the exact same thing. 'This field may be young, but it has a great future!' Nassim Taleb claims
that any major finding of psychology that is (A) rigorous and (B) useful outside the narrow confines of experiment can already be found in classical literature. I don't know whether he's right or not, but I do know that finding testable and usable insights into something as incredibly complicated as the human mind requires a lot more than just a basic understand of Popperian falsification or statistics."Like any other field of science it has a lot of improvement left to make, but flat out going off and claiming it is unscientific and pseudoscience is a disservice to individuals who have and are spending their lives trying to advance the field. The principles of evolution do apply to psychology, they have to."
Two subjects we know incredibly little about - human evolution and the human mind. You don't see any issue with combining the two?"Ok, so you dislike school, because it teaches things that you can't immediately apply, and you think everybody else should dislike it, too."
No, I dislike school because it teaches useless things to children who would be much healthier and happier if they spent that time doing different things, and teaches them extremely badly. I'm not for banning every class I personally find useless, but they should be optional at the very least
."And it sounds awfully like the socialist ideal that all are equal, which, when enforced, becomes that nobody should excel in any way. Teach skills, you say, but skills haven't come from a vacuum or existed since the beginning of the universe. Once somebody invented the skill, and went further in the search for knowledge than others to do so."
This is not in any way I can discern a response to anything I've said."I have learnt so many things in school and university that I don't directly use in my daily life. I even continued taking courses at the university for years after my degree with absolutely no intention of getting another degree. I just wanted to know things."
I've never studied at university, but I'm more sympathetic towards them since they at least specialize their teaching to some degree and are intended to actually produce working citizens."And I think you'll find many curious minds in these forums. You've picked the wrong audience for your rants."
Most of the intellectual forums I've been to agree with me on public schooling (on Lesswrong, I recall, someone considered it an outright form of child abuse). Are you sure we're talking about the same system here? You didn't go to a private school or live outside the US?