Ironically, it was the physicists Ernst Mach that first proposed that psychology was the primary science and all other sciences mere branches of psychology. Given that all of reality is mere perception, the study of perception becomes the foundational field of study for all other sciences:

"The frequent excursions which I have made into this province have all sprung from the profound conviction that the foundations of science as a whole, and of physics in particular, await their next greatest elucidations from the side of biology, and especially, from the analysis of the sensations" (1984, p. vii).

A major influence in 19th Century experimental psychology came from astronomy. The astronomer Kinnebrook was fired from Greenwich Observatory because of errors in his observations. He was recording the transit time of stars, as they passed through a fiber that would temporary block them from view. This was done by listening to the ticking of a clock, and counting the ticks until the star reappeared. The issue came when it was noticed that the average time recorded by Kinnebrook differed by .75 seconds from the leading astronomer. 

The astronomer Friedrich Bessel noticed that it wasn't just Kinnebrook, but every astronomer consistently varied in their recording times. Bessel attempted to remove this variability by assigning a unique equation to each individual that would normalize their unique error. Thus the study of individual differences and statistics for human behavior was born (McConnell, 2009). The initial error of astronomers was the assumption that sensation and perception occurred simultaneously. It had not yet been considered that the distance between nerves affects the time information takes to travel to the brain, and that people differ in this regard.

The term "hard" sciences is oxymoronic. There's a reason why science began with physics and chemistry, and has now progressed to harder fields such as psychology and other social sciences. Individuals who look down on psychology, typically do so because they are uncomfortable with the variability and complexity that the world naturally has, and prefer the stable and predictable environments of a physics lab.

As long as scientists are the ones doing science, every field of science is subservient to the research of psychology and other social sciences.

References: 

Ernst, Mach. (1984). The analysis of sensations and the relation of the physical to the psychical. La Salle: Open Court.

McConnell, Daniel. (2009). Philosophical and theoretical foundations of psychology (2nd ed.). Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Top->down vs up->Top is all you're saying, John.

---

(September 25, 2020 at 1:05 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Sal Wrote:But can't you see this fundamental limitation?

I am not sure what you mean.

Sal Wrote:Even in maths?

Well, at least, in mathematics, you don't have to deal with unknown intial variables. You can prove he four-color theorem by brute-forcing, something like that is probably impossible in any other science.

Sal Wrote:Even in logic?

Again, I am not sure what you mean.

Sal Wrote:Axioms?

Again, I am not sure what you mean.

Only thing I'm getting at is that there are gaps in our knowledge on a fundamental level.

Axioms are a priori assumptions about the nature of this knowledge. The problem with any axiom of any caliber is of this incompleteness in our knowledge, such that we can even reach conclusions that expand the pool of axioms or revise them. That's it. Doesn't happen often, but we have done so with Euclid in the modern day in philosophy of mathematics.

This is easy to see why for any non-self identity axiom (which are mere tautologies, like the self-identity A=A), because this rests on the use of them as identities.

John 6IX Breezy Wrote:Individuals who look down on psychology, typically do so because they are uncomfortable with the variability and complexity that the world naturally has, and prefer the stable and predictable environments of a physics lab.

But, see, exactly because human psychology is complex and variable... the scientific method is way less reliable for human psychology than it is for physics. And what psychology says doesn't have the same weight as what the physics says. Similarly, when making political decisions, we cannot take what economists say about economics to be nearly as certain as what physicists have to say about physics. Furthermore, economists, unlike physicists, agree on very few things about their field.

Sal Wrote:The problem with any axiom of any caliber is of this incompleteness in our knowledge, such that we can even reach conclusions that expand the pool of axioms or revise them.

Of course there are some things in mathematics we are not certain about. Not all mathematicians agree about the Axiom of Choice, because Banach-Tarski Paradox (which follows from the Axiom of Choice) makes many mathematicians uncomfortable. And, yes, some things which seemed obvious in mathematics turned out to be false. Like you said, in antiquity, it seemed obvious the only consistent geometry is one that assumes the Euclid's Fifth Postulate, and that the Fifth Postulate probably follows from the first four. Later, it seemed that the Fifth Postulate is independent of the first four postulates, but that it's obviously true in our universe. Later, it turned out that was not the case.

But, see, physics can only be true if mathematics it's based on is, so physics is inherently less certain than mathematics is. And, since all other sciences are based directly or indirectly on physics, they are more likely to be wrong than physics is. And so on...

(September 27, 2020 at 1:55 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: And what psychology says doesn't have the same weight as what the physics says.

And yet, what physics says is dependant on what psychologists say. Things such as biases, reasoning, observation, information processing, and everything else that allows physicists to study physics, are built on assumptions about how the mind works.

Assumptions which psychological research often contradicts (like the simultaneity of sensation and perception assumed by astronomers). Physicists cannot escape their own brain. What's dangerous is being oblivious to this fact as scientists.

(September 27, 2020 at 2:04 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 27, 2020 at 1:55 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: And what psychology says doesn't have the same weight as what the physics says.

And yet, what physics says is dependant on what psychologists say. Things such as biases, reasoning, observation, information processing, and everything else that allows physicists to study physics, are built on assumptions about how the mind works.

Assumptions which psychological research often contradicts (like the simultaneity of sensation and perception assumed by astronomers). Physicists cannot escape their own brain. What's dangerous is being oblivious to this fact as scientists.

You might as well say linguistics is a harder science than mathematics because mathematicians sometimes use words.

Yes, physics does use blinded controlled experiments to protect itself from mind interfering with the results. But it's way easier to protect oneself from mind interfering with the results of the experiment in physics than it is in psychology.

(September 28, 2020 at 3:45 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: But it's way easier to protect oneself from mind interfering with the results of the experiment in physics than it is in psychology.

That's a psychological assumption you just made.

We need to be sure if our minds actually work they way we think they are. That's primary. What do you think experimentation, observation, repeatability of results, hypothesis and the whole scientific method is worth if you're a crank?

Despite their methodology, cranks are convinced they're doing science.

Worth plenty, especially considering that a cranks crankiness won't have any effect on their results if they stick to the process. If a crank is doing science, then a crank is doing science..and cranks are perfectly capable of doing science. Alot of the notables weren't exactly normal.

The process would work without humans, any species could use it. This latest bit of puffery is a play on a simple idea. That we can't know anything unless we know one specific thing. We don't know how the mind works, but that hasn't (and literally can't) stop us from figuring out other things.

It's more the fault in their own minds than the methodology itself. You don't need to know how it works, just be able to spot when it doesn't. Much like faith.

This is the bifurcation between fringe and frontier.

The findings from the Greenwich Observatory demonstrate that simply sticking to the process is insufficient to get consistent results across researchers.