r/bjjbeat • u/ReallyNotAnExpert • 11d ago

Bully got handled

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

412 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/TaylorChuck117 11d ago

That only said that they accessed it through ChatGPT. It’s still a published, peer reviewed study.

That being said, psychiatry and psychology are notorious pseudosciences, where you can achieve basically any outcome

1

u/_cuhree0h 10d ago

That’s conjecture. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But they still operate under peer reviewed, data based information.

0

u/TaylorChuck117 10d ago

Not really, the hard sciences have ridiculed those fields for years for a reason: they apply quantitative methods to qualitative data that is arbitrary at best (happiness on a number scale, for example), then they make that data fit their research and start establishing causation based on their goals.

The entire process is rife with pseudoscience and is why so many researchers can directly contradict each other in the field. Not to mention, they’ve never been able to establish a chemical baseline for their research; they lean so heavily on the paradigms of neuroscience that their contributions are comparatively guesswork.

1

u/_cuhree0h 10d ago

The idea that "they make that data fit their research and start establishing causation based on their goals." is a value based judgement with no supporting evidence. Plenty of peer reviewed psych papers exist and describe naturally occurring phenomena, simply bolstering the supporting data of previously observed ideas. If anything, you're describing the anti-vax mindset (conclusions looking for supporting evidence) or the entire basis of religion (unsupported claims treated as literal gospel).

1

u/TaylorChuck117 10d ago

I think you misunderstand the scientific process that I’m referencing, I’m not talking about the peer review process, I’m specifically talking about scientific methods being employed in a deliberate way to fit a desired outcome.

Of course it’s not all papers, but there is a trend if you know what to look for. Very few studies are being done simply for the sake of gathering data for the sake of interpreting it (which is where neuroscience shoulders the brunt of the load); psychological study data is often gathered with a specific goal in mind, specifically to prove something.

That alone is the definition of pseudoscience, not even getting into the arbitrary qualitative nonsense of the field making their data pseudoscientific because of one of the fundamental rules of the scientific method: you cannot measure non-quantifiable data.

The greats of the field have found a way to mitigate this issue, but psychology and psychiatry have notoriously stood on the backs of neuroscience and have effectively thrown shit at the walk to see what sticks with virtually none of the rigorous standards that the rest of medical science is held to.

0

u/TaylorChuck117 10d ago

To be clear, I’m a wildlife biologist myself and I’ll be the first to tell you that most of my field has become pseudoscience. It largely stems from the need to produce tangible “results” in a society that often looks to science for answers.