Do IEs Really Exist?

[Pallas]

its the question, is it just attitudes of the psyche which is invented (estimations of the real deal) or is it real dimension in the fabric of reality? It is impossible really to prove one over the other

Then psychology is not a science. Which is already what half or more of the scientific community thinks anyways, so that's not a new sentiment, just an unusual one for a typology forum.

[Tigerfadder]

Then psychology is not a science. Which is already what half or more of the scientific community thinks anyways, so that's not a new sentiment, just an unusual one for a typology forum.

Science states that everything is false until you can prove without any grain of doubt that it is not false. Theoretically by science than only earth have life in the universe.

[perpetuus]

Then psychology is not a science. Which is already what half or more of the scientific community thinks anyways, so that's not a new sentiment, just an unusual one for a typology forum.

I am by no means an "anti-science" person but I sometimes think society has a very narrow idea and expectation of what constitutes "science."

If defined as follows:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,

then I think it would follow from that definition that typology and psychology could still be considered sciences. Whether people want to classify them as "soft" or "hard" sciences is another matter, I suppose.

I consider them sciences, I just think they're still in their infancy.

[Pallas]

I am by no means an "anti-science" person but I sometimes think society has a very narrow idea and expectation of what constitutes "science."

If defined as follows:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,

then I think it would follow from that definition that typology and psychology could still be considered sciences. Whether people want to classify them as "soft" or "hard" sciences is another matter, I suppose.

I consider them sciences, I just think they're still in their infancy.

But that would include astrology and phrenology, and "society" doesn't want that.

[perpetuus]

But that would include astrology and phrenology, and "society" doesn't want that.

Society can lick my balls.

[Adam Strange]

I am by no means an "anti-science" person but I sometimes think society has a very narrow idea and expectation of what constitutes "science."

If defined as follows:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,

then I think it would follow from that definition that typology and psychology could still be considered sciences. Whether people want to classify them as "soft" or "hard" sciences is another matter, I suppose.

I consider them sciences, I just think they're still in their infancy.

That puts them on par with economics.

What amazes me about economists is how they can be wrong more frequently than a coin toss and people still consider them to be authorities. I suspect that they are convenient tools of some sectors of political society.

[Pallas]

That puts them on par with economics.

What amazes me about economists is how they can be wrong more frequently than a coin toss and people still consider them to be authorities. I suspect that they are convenient tools of some sectors of political society.

But anyone can toss a coin

[perpetuus]

That puts them on par with economics.

What amazes me about economists is how they can be wrong more frequently than a coin toss and people still consider them to be authorities. I suspect that they are convenient tools of some sectors of political society.

i find economics fascinating but economists tend to be windbags. Economist fanboys are the worst, especially the Friedman fanboys