[Sigh] This is why I hate text. You don't get tone. And no I didn't choose the wrong words to express myself.
Can I ask you a personal question?
#33613111 - 2 months ago
What I was going for is kinda what Fettuc said- psychology exists within a margin of error greater than most other sciences. You can see how much mass is converted into energy in a nuclear fission reaction with E=MC^2 (the proper equation is actually e^2=m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2. e=mc^2 is binding state energy), and its margin of error is down to the level of tens of AMUs (1 AMU is almost exactly the mass of a proton).
Psychology, however, is a bit more vague. It has a certain consistency in that you can diagnose certain abnormalities and disorders, but you can't quite put these abnormalities in equation form or quantify aspects of the mind. You can trace certain issues to parts of the brain that are damaged or dysfunctional, but there's no equation you can plug in that gives you an accurate diagnosis.
revanninja One who is judged by the
#33613136 - 2 months ago
But the same is also true for math and physics as there are yet unexplained parts of the world and universe which runs counter to our understanding.
Things that operate on rules we are just beginning to understand.
Psychology really hasnt been studied in the same level of depth that Math or even chemistry has gotten.
So it hasnt received the refinement other sciences have been given.
It also deals with the most complicated organ in the human body which is still barely understood in regards to function.
Its not a surprise that Psychology enjoys a greater uncertainty to it because far more of its functions are unknown.
#33613428 - 2 months ago
That last one actually made me chuckle.
Psychology is not "exact science". Much like Biology. What do you consider a "normal" behavior for X animal? Or a "normal" shape for a leaf? It all depends on your error margins. Which was a blow for me - I didn't expect to depend so freaking much on statistics.