if only psychology was a real science where hypothesis are thoroughly tested and tests are independently reproduced.
Or do you have other ideas how to do proper testing?
Because otherwise experiments with control groups, electrodes, MRT etc. are a thing in psychology. But you can only achieve so much with it.
Many people are working on bridging neuroscience and psychology but it hasn't happened yet.
And the reason why bridging is not really happening, because of the ethical restrictions. But this is my hypothesis. The other hypothesis might be, that too many careers depend on models that would not hold up by experiments, but I really cannot judge here because of lack of knowledge.
They might believe this in the same way that some UX people might view all of software as a subset of UX, because everything ends up as an experience for some user somewhere.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=quantum+bra...
Well, for starters don't call them studies, call them "hunches" or "intuitions" or whatever you like to indicate that there is actually no real evidence to prove your thesis.
Occam's razor tells us to believe that it's much more plausible that psychologist publish massaged data to keep getting funded, than because it's actually very hard to admit that "we don't know for sure, this study proves nothing".
Have you ever heard of my fellow Italian professor Francesca Gino?
I think they're still doing science, it's just much more difficult given physical and ethical constraints.
* Psychology is not a "real" science because it doesn't produce quality evidence.
* But quality psychological evidence is (too) hard to produce.
See how the second point doesn't really refute the first?
That's my primary issue with this. Phrenology can also be called "not real science" but it doesn't seem fair to paint both with such a broad brush. There's more nuance involved than an off-the-cuff "not real."
Though at this point it all feels too belabored to carry on.
Atomic bombs are very dangerous too and not very easy to "test them right", but atomic physics is a real science.
Anyway, the problem in psychology is that psychologists often lie and fabricate false evidence, not that the rats aren't enough.
There are multiple studies about it, published by scientists, most of them agree that "Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted."
There's a point where a field can't keep going on shielding behind the false myth that "the problem is that we can't test on humans".
Can you link a study, that makes such a claim?
Of course I can, I took it from a study!
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
--------------------
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29861517/
https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-stu...
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208863120
the real problem is that the kind of psychology studies that gets the more attention on the media, that shape the culture and the beliefs of the general public and that are often used by governs and institutions (even medical ones) to deploy policies, health care plans, school or work environment guidelines, etc. etc. are those that are less trustworthy, that fail to be replicated the most and more subject to interpretations and subjective biases, in particular social psychology (citation: Social Psychology (38% success rate, n = 256).)