Philosophy and Psychology are just memes. Go into neuroscience and learn how the brain actually works or don't bother this silly guessing game.99% of "academic" papers are just redefining and recategorizing; something than anyone with half a brain cell would know is a futile exercise.
>le science got it righttop kek. wake up, would you? science can't tell you what the atom is. it even believe it can split the atom. how dumb
>>18110188Psychology has it's issues and they're huge(how is psychoanalysis not in the same basket as homeopathy yet?) but neuroscience was the field most affected by replication studies and that was solely due to the le brain heat maps meme, hinting that the field is extremely poorly managed from the scientific PoV - we know the technology works fine so this means the researchers can't get the part where they apply stimuli correctly.
>>18110628>replication studiesCrisis*
>>18110188>Philosophy and Psychology are just memesThey're the base of our interaction with reality.>Go into neuroscience and learn how the brain actually works Yes, hence the neuro-. Philosophy never argued that it will tell you about mechanisms of the brain and neither did psychology. >PicrelGreat for scientists! They would then have to run a separate study on sugar-free cakes. Then on vegan cakes. Then on raw cakes. By the time they reach the comprehensive understanding by releasing paper #1937447, psychologists and philosophers will have already released the 8th edition of cake cookbooks. The particular does not defeat the general. Especially not in arbitrary man-made categories.
>>18110683>Philosophy never argued that it will tell you about mechanisms of the brain and neither did psychology.Debatable semantic argument at best. Both have always been attempts to explain human experience and behavior without proper means to dissect and analyze the brain.>cake cookbooksCookbook implies recipes, implying a methodology to reproduce cakes. Which psycholgy and philosophy never attempt to do; they are content with eternal redefinition and reclassification. Any attempts at a cookbook would be laughable amalgamations of concepts like softness, layers, and color. It would produce a cake as effectively as artificial intelligence can produce emotion.Each of those scientific papers you allude to in your sad pathetic attempt at mockery, would be infinitely more accurate and telling of what actually comprises cakes.Science has long progressed into the study of atomic structure, subatomic particles, and quantum physics while philosophers would still be playing with Platonic forms of "metalness" and "woodness."Science has sent men to the moon, rovers to Mars. Philo/psych have given us nothing."General" is meaningless and worthless. No one should know better the sisyphus-level impossibility and eternity that is "classification.">arbitrary man-made categoriesI.e. philosophy and psychology.These two areas of "academia" are closer to the likes of alchemy, astrology, or outdated medical ideas of "balancing the humors."Every time I open an "academic" paper it without fail starts and ends with a "I propose a #-class model to define X" with X itself being an arbitrary term with loose definition. Even if they propose an infallible model (which by the very nature of classification and definition is an impossibility) it ultimately is a job that has no practical use or intellectual intrigue whatsoever.It's so stupid I can only surmise these two fields continue to exist and make such papers to con the government out of money
>>18110188Is there a Hadith on this cake thing?
>>18110188>scientists pat themselves on the back for figuring out what every baker already knowsmany such cases!
>>18111721there is one about Momo eating chicken, if it counts
>>18110188>the study of memes is a meme lol I guess
