The social sciences.

Need required reading for Physcology/Sociology/Philosophy.

Goign to the bookstore, going to pick up complete works of Bohme and Nietchze, need some more ideas.

No. Kill yourself instead. Or at the very least never call that shit science again.

Social... research ?!!?!!?!??!??!

Since when is philosophy a social science?

Science and mathematics may have started off as branches of philosophy, but nowadays they're completely different.

philospohy isn't a social science per se, but it is somethinbg that i have an interest in, and the study of different philosophies is arguably what the social sciences are all about.

Psychology = bunch of pseudo-scientific voodoo
Sociology = statistical masturbation

Philosophy is interesting however. Not really science, but interesting nonetheless.

I disagree about psychology. Some branches (ie, biological psychology) take the scientific method and statistical analyses far too seriously.

I learned more about rigorous experimentation and the nuances of statistics in one particular psychology subject than I did in any of the natural sciences. I guess psychologists are tired of being regarded as a pseudoscience.

Of course, then there's the cockamamie shit that's psychology's heritage. Too much cocaine.

>>7
Problem with psychology is that human behaviour can't be analysed with scientific method. There's way too many things that affect it and currently human brain is just too complex for us to understand.

>>8
biological and freudian psychology both make some sense and have proven to be somewhat usefull.

no one has given me any book reccomendations yet :(

is it worth getting the complete writings of Bohme? I know i need to read Nietchze, but Bohme seems kinda... absolutely fucking nuts.

We certainly can analyse human behaviour with the scientific method, and we do. Where should I even begin?

Group formation and dynamics? The way your visual system is organised? Conditions that make it possible to ignore pain? The causes of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia? The viability of witness testimony? Correlations between SES and future success? Shit, even marketing and propaganda draw from this field (hint: Pavlovian and operant conditioning are hugely popular with these guys!).

I suppose these are mundane to most people. I suppose they want a perfect model of human behaviour much the way physicists would love a GUT. But we're steadily expanding our understanding of both the human brain and our behaviour. Human's aren't some kind of miracle machine beyond the ken of observation.

>>9
I have to disagree with the Freudian psychology bit. In a historic context it was useful, but considering that many of Freud's theories aren't testable, they're useless for the exploration of human behaviour and its causes.

Freud's contribution was kicking the whole thing off.