Bob K

To prove that psychology is a science we ought to be able to provide examples of psychological laws.

Weber's Law is one psychological law.

Others psychological laws exist, including laws of learning derived from behavioral research (rat psychology), but we ought to organize them into a body of information inre psychological laws and the experiments using the scientific method which justify those laws.

I have provided a series of posts which provide a description of what is a science, what is the Code of Science, and a basis for an operational definition of psychlogy as the science of the mind including operational definitions of, and observable data for, the concepts of mind, desire(s), fear(s), and priority(ies) necessary for an understanding of the operational definition of mind.

In Post #70 I have proposed that introspection and inference are legitimate observations inre S->O->R sequences because they are indirect observations of the desires/fears/priorities within the O that prompt the R to the S; and I have shown that indirect observations are legitimate in science--the indirect observations of black holes being a necessary example from the science of physics.

I propose that within this thread, or by starting another, those interested proving that psychology is a science can propose information and sources and experiments inre psychological laws.

Febble

Not sure about this. I don't think biological sciences lend themselves to laws, just heuristics. Weber's Law isn't really a law, just a heuristic. There are too many variables in biological sciences for anything with the clarity of a law.

I'm sticking with the simple one: psychology is a science because as a discipline it includes the generation of theories from which can be derived testable (falsifiable) hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses. But we don't tend to end up with laws - just more pieces of a puzzle that can never be completed.

Kyle

Alright now Bob, 11 posts in a row has crossed the line into spam.

Bob K

Are we discussing psychology or biology?

Weber's Law is a Psychological Law, a Law of Psychology.

When heuristic is defined by various sources, ...

... then I do not connect Weber's Law with a particular technique of directing one's attention in learning, discovery, or problem-solving or a simple, efficient [rule] of thumb which [has] been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments and solve problems; instead, I view Weber's Law as a law of psychophysics.

I have proposed that those interested in compiling a body of psychological laws/laws of psychology, and not heuristics of psychology, present their proposals or findings in this thread or in a new thread.

Let's see who comes to the party and what they bring.

Bob K

If you are joking, fine.

If you are not, then, instead of complaining, how about studying the concepts and principles which have been presented inre the specification of what is a science and what is psychology on the way to answering the question: Is psychology a science?

I presented all these posts to help people who are interested in the question: Is psychology a science? understand my point of view inre what is science and psychology, which has been long thought-out and researched, and requires extensive reading, learning, and consideration, and to provide answers to questions which would have been asked if I had presented much shorter and therefore simpler expositions.

Febble

I'm thinking of all that wetware.

Barefoot Bree

These posts were split from here. Carry on, those who dare.

Corona688

I don't think that's a joke. 11 posts has crossed the line into spam. It's so much obfuscated text that it's difficult to tell what your position even is. You might as well be copy-pasting from the post-modernism generator. You have failed them. You have presented no clear, concise position. Do so first, then we can go back to making fun of your views on science and mathematics.