Like I said I've done more with Jung

No theory in psychology can really be proven

Freudian slips are not valid, they're statistical anomalies that are normal and are supposed to happen.

I'm 100% sure that they're real, but whatever man

If nothing in psychology can be proven, then psychology is not science

You're telling me you've never had a Freudian slip? <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Not once in my entire life

@ETBrooD That's not how science works

Yes that is how it works. A theory that can't be proven is not a scientific theory. Falsification is *neccessary* for a scientific theory.

"science" in this context is synonymous with the scientific method. It does not require proof

Are you trolling me?

The scientific method is designed to generate proof my dude

LOL

Phad just posted an infographic that contradicts his claim

This is science

"test with an experiment" => proof of concept

No I didn't. <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

> "test with an experiment" => proof of concept
@ETBrooD <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Your question marks aren't helping you make an argument

Yeah, okayyyy then

@phadreus [Discord's being dumb and won't let me quote anything right now so I just leave out the quote of the argument you referred me to earlier] I'm not sure how I feel about your original argument. While an intelligence/birth rate trade off could be the reason why we have seen no evidence for other super intelligent creatures, it seems quite the leap to take this reason as fact when we have examples of creatures that buck the trend like the crustacean mentioned earlier. It could easily be that another hyper intelligent life form has a direct correlation between intelligence and fertility as opposed to the reverse. I think the water world hypothesis is a far more likely reason for why we see no traces of other hyper-intelligent creatures. They are simply limited by the fact that a lot of landmass is rare on water world's like ours and so intelligence may be contained in sea creatures like dolphins and whales on other worlds. hyper intelligence may be stopped by a limited environment like very little landmass (with our environment being an extremely rare exception) as opposed to an inbuilt intelligence/birth rate trade off in humanity by virtue of simply being a lifeform. However, I see no real flaws with your argument beyond that. If we accept the foundational argument that humanity will cease to exist otherwise and that humanity should continue to exist, then I see no reason why we shouldn't try to keep human subspecies separate and diverse. However, that's the problem. This is one answer among many as to why there is no spacefaring species visiting us. It could just as easily be another very different reason. On a similar note, I remember this study and thought I'd reference it since it's quite related. Apparently, intelligence increases male virility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7767877.stm

You haven't said anything worth making an argument against. @ETBrooD

This is the most basic thing ever in science. Lack of falsifiability = not scientifically valid.

>U GOTTA HAVE ARGUMENT
>NOOO I DON'T NEED ONE
It *is* okay to be wrong phad- look at it this way- you grow from losing in debate. The winner walks away with nothing gained.

I gain ego stroking though <:thinkgon:560211224923734026>

also, y'too uptight my man
c h i l l

> being dumb and won't let me quote anything right now so I just leave out the quote of the argument you referred me to earlier] I'm not sure how I feel about your original argument. While an intelligence/birth rate trade off could be the reason why we have seen no evidence for other super intelligent creatures, it seems quite the leap to take this reason as fact when we have examples of creatures that buck the trend like the crustacean mentioned earlier. It could easily be that another hyper intelligent life form has a direct correlation between intelligence and fertility as opposed to the reverse. For instance, I think the water world hypothesis is a far more likely reason for why we see no traces of other hyper-intelligent creatures. They are simply limited by the fact that a lot of landmass is rare on water world's like ours and so intelligence may be contained in sea creatures like dolphins and whales on other worlds. hyper intelligence may be stopped by a limited environment like very little landmass (with our environment being an extremely rare exception) as opposed to an inbuilt intelligence/birth rate trade off in humanity by virtue of simply being a lifeform. However, I see no real flaws with your argument beyond that. If we accept the foundational argument that humanity will cease to exist otherwise and that humanity should continue to exist, then I see no reason why we shouldn't try to keep human subspecies separate and diverse. However, that's the problem. This is one answer among many as to why there is no spacefaring species visiting us. It could just as easily be another very different reason. On a related note, I remember this study and thought I'd reference it since it's quite related. Apparently, intelligence increases male virility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7767877.stm

@Alex Fahey

Well the crustacean isn't relevant because it's not truly sentient in context to the Fermi paradox. It isn't making technology.

Any filter is only a partial fiter, most likely. This theory of mine would be a lesser filter under rare intelligence, which is a major filter, rather than the only possible solution. Likely that it's one of many reasons.

Also, thabks for reading. That's just a rough draft and I'll probably be finishing it sometime soon.

@ETBrooD Dude, doing experiments and drawing conclusions isn't the same thing as "proving" something, you understand that right??? This is why they do the same experiment over and over.

Regardless, I see psychology as on the border of philosophy and science, especially modern psychology. Psychoanalysis is pretty scientific because they did experimentation and compared large numbers of people to try and tind correlations between traits.

> If nothing in psychology can be proven, then psychology is not science

> That's not how science works

> Yes that is how it works. A theory that can't be proven is not a scientific theory. Falsification is *neccessary* for a scientific theory.

> "science" in this context is synonymous with the scientific method. It does not require proof

**"can't** be proven"
If something **literally cannot** be proven, then it **cannot** be scientific. It must be **possible** to prove something (or disprove) for it to be scientific.

But then again, *science is just a school of philosophy* so I suppose you coukd just call psychology a school of philosophy as well and give it new rules.

The **inability** to prove or disprove a theory is a **lack of falsifiability**

The supernatural world cannot be explained using natural means. Hence the supernatural cannot be scientific.

You can say that theories don't need to *actually* have *existing* proof to be scientifically valid theories, but they still need to be *falsifiable* (i.e. it must be *possible* to prove or disprove them) to be scientifically valid.

I'm honestly at a loss for how to explain this to you and decided to just do a search and see what comes up. Anyways... This was the first result and pretty accurately explains your misunderstanding(ironically from psychology today)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Quote the part about falsifiability, I'm not gonna read the whole thing

I need to do other shit now and don't really care about this conversation. I really don't have the time to explain basic concepts to people.

You're literally just trying to wear people down with bullshit you didn't even fact check then

"In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives."

god that was SO FUCKING HARD I'm going to die of brain overload

Basic concepts like falsifiability, you mean?