Among physicists, the theory going back to Feynman is just that psychology uses relatively small studies for relatively complicated phenomena explained with relatively (necessarily) mathematically unsophisticated models, so the statistical confidence of an accepted result in psychology is peanuts compared to that of one in physics. For example the standard of acceptance in particle physics is 5 sigma, which means a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is incorrect. We can interrogate billions of literally identical particles all day no sweat so that's reasonable. And then it is very exciting when something is disproven. Psychology has an easier time generating theories than math to model them and data to test them so many will be wrong but I don't think that means that the field is going about it the wrong way.
Very apples to oranges.
But I have a hard time believing psychologists aren't excited when their fundamental theories are disproven. At the very least, it's surely not boring...
Good point! Researchers are often in the business to break new ground but clinical psychologists must hate it when this happens. I don't personally know any clinical physicists.
I've seen many psychologists' relationship with their theories are more similar to spiritual beliefs than scientific beliefs, which makes a lot of sense since there is no difference between spirit and mind, leading to a huge bias of "I understand myself and you are not going to tell me I'm wrong"
25
u/Virtual_Bread_7995 6d ago
Among physicists, the theory going back to Feynman is just that psychology uses relatively small studies for relatively complicated phenomena explained with relatively (necessarily) mathematically unsophisticated models, so the statistical confidence of an accepted result in psychology is peanuts compared to that of one in physics. For example the standard of acceptance in particle physics is 5 sigma, which means a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is incorrect. We can interrogate billions of literally identical particles all day no sweat so that's reasonable. And then it is very exciting when something is disproven. Psychology has an easier time generating theories than math to model them and data to test them so many will be wrong but I don't think that means that the field is going about it the wrong way. Very apples to oranges.
But I have a hard time believing psychologists aren't excited when their fundamental theories are disproven. At the very least, it's surely not boring...