Almost all papers in psychology and sociology fail the test of repeatability.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology depend on self reporting.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include susceptibility to suggestion.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology make use of small populations of students or patients.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include value judgements.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology assume a normative ideal. (this is what I object to)
If instead our findings are repeatable;
If instead we are measuring by context-free measurements;
If instead our tests eliminate all chances of suggestion.
If instead our population consists of more than 1000, and preferably 10k people;
if Instead our categories of measurement contain no assertions of value to a trait (other than evolutionary or physical necessity – such as ‘neural economy’);
if instead our categories of measurement contain *evolutionary specializations rather than uniform ideal*(authoritarianism);
Then there is a fair chance we are conducting science, rather than projection.
So if your paper passes these tests it’s got a chance of not being false.
|| Sample size > Reporting > Motivations / Value judgements > Specialization > Repeatability.
Psychoanalysis and that argumentative technique making use of the categories of psychoanalysis (a uniform standard or ideal) that we call psychologism are pseudoscience.
The problem for psychology is that the categories and terminology are pseudoscientific. That does not mean they are not meaningful. It means they are fictions.
*As a general rule, the specification of an organism is determined by its limits not it’s median.*
May 26, 2018 6:25am