Richard Feynman on Pseudoscience

I guess that you would agree with Richard Feynman [VIDEO] > ... how easy it is to make mistake and fool yourself ...

Simple. You can only publish to Nature etc. if your results are replicated twice by others and you open up all your raw data. Short time later only real science will be published. The amount of published results will massively go down and Nature and other will not makes as much money. Now you know the reason why publishers publish results that can't be replicated. Or listen to anything from Feynman about real science e.g. [VIDEO]

I agree with you a bit. But I also think there's a danger in assuming every anecdote is a data point, which is best expressed here: [VIDEO] (Short video with Richard Feynman)... tl;dv - it's very hard to know something and you have to be really careful that you've done the work and aren't just deluding yourself. Or, to put it differently - every anecdote is really only a data point if you understand what exactly it's measuring and what has been excluded. If you haven't taken the care necessary, then it's very easy to draw false conclusions. People are really bad witnesses and really bad at seeing what is and isn't given in the information they think they have - particularly if the anecdote is time-shifted from the point it was taken.

Economics has always been more of a religion than anything else. It has no predictive aspects. It is purely reflective. And the entire system has a group of "ideologies/leaders/etc" that adherents cling to and worship. Economics is what Feynman calls a "pseudoscience" ( aka social sciences ). [VIDEO] One sect of economists will argue with another sect of economists and neither side can ever win. Just like muslims and jews will argue with each other and never get anywhere.

> In other words, the field just has very low standards for truth, in a scientific sense. The field has little to no scientific sense. It's why psychiatry/psychology is a soft science. It isn't based on the scientific method or reproducibility and testing. It's mostly based on consensus driven by a handful of powerful practitioners. [LINK] What sigmund freud did wasn't science. His oedipal complex theory isn't a scientific theory. There is no scientific test to refute it. You just accept it or not. The biggest problem of our generation is the conflation of science ( hard science ) with pseudoscience ( soft science ). Because both has the word science in it, people give soft sciences far more credit than it deserves. If anyone is interested, Richard Feynman had a very interesting interview about it. [VIDEO]

"Social science". The term science has been appropriated by so many pseudosciences that it has lost any meaning. Because real science has such a good reputation, all the academic frauds have decided to link their field to science to enhance their own reputation. There is political "science", legal "science", economics, etc. Here is richard feynmann's poignant take on the matter. BTW, it has gotten way worse since feynmann's interview. [VIDEO]

You aren't being snarky. There has been lingering questions about the field of psychology and social science in general for a very long time. Paraphrasing Richard Feymann, he called social science a pseudoscience until proven otherwise. [VIDEO] And after all these years since his interview, we are still waiting. This is one of the reasons why some have placed their hopes on neuroscience being the science of the brain and mind.

Actually what most people consider science is in line with Popper's view. When most people think science, they think the "hard sciences" - physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's fairly recently that the idea of the "soft sciences" ( sociology, economists, etc ) being real science has become popular. Richard Feynman called "soft science" a pseudoscience, which I completely agree with. [VIDEO] Humanities departments around the country essentially appropriated the good name of science at add more legitimacy to their "soft science". It's similar to how "christian science" or "scientology" appropriated the good name of science to legitimatize themselves in the eyes of the public. Creationists have even created creationism "science" to make themselves look more legitimate.

Or as Richard Feynmann wisely and correctly called it - pseudoscience. [VIDEO] It's pseudoscience used by people to push ideological and political agenda. Ever since science pretty much knocked religion down a peg or two, the activists created a new form of "religion" to further political goals.

It's in a replication crisis because pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ). It's why Richard Feynmann associated social science with pseudoscience. [VIDEO] Because real science destroyed the credibility of religion and religion in much of the world is no longer a credible social control tool, the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Whereas religion controlled everything from economics, schooling, family, culture, society, law, etc, now they all fall under the pseudoscience/religion called social "science". --------------------------------------------- Reply to ziddoap. Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested. I consider social science to be a pseudoscience for the same reason richard feynmann did. Did you bother watching what he had to say? Social "science" is a humanities. It belongs in the category with philosophy, ethics, literature, religion, etc. Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad. I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science.

> Then they goes on to criticize political science and psychology as their poster children for the humanities, except these are social sciences Social sciences are a humanities. The term social science was invented fairly recently by sneaky academics to leech off the credibility of actual science. > It's like the author isn't even familiar with academia. Are you? This issue with "social science" has been going on for a few decades now. Richard Feymann called social science a pseudoscience a few decades ago. [VIDEO] The name social science was invented for the same reason creation science was invented because real science had such a good reputation and they didn't so they decided to manufacture some credibility by attaching "science" to their fields.

> Management Science It’s jarring and galling to see management and science put together in a way that’s suggestive of management being a science. It reeks of stolen valor. Obligatory Feynman on “sciences”: [VIDEO]

I'm the one that said usually, Feynman didn't have that cop-out and he was specifically talking about social science: [VIDEO] Worth watching the clip so you can hear the argument directly. IMO his point is that peer review is not what makes something science. Nor are studies, publishing papers nor p-values, even gathering and reproducing data is not what makes science science.

This could serve as a beacon for those who still care: Richard Feynman: "I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself..." [VIDEO]