>>10929963Neuroscience is boring. It never actually gets at anything more substantial or interesting than trivial factoids like "neurons in the corpus callosum usually carry X mitochondria." The clinically applied neuroscience research, while actually useful, typically operates on woefully incomplete understandings; we're really just doing what seems to work, and most medications operate by this principle, crude bricks that we smash atypical brains with to make them behave and maybe be happy. Neuroscience isn't the Holy Grail you think it is and if you had ever read the slightest smattering about the subject you would be aware of this. It is necessary for there to be a synthesis of raw biological data and conscious experience, or the domain of philosophy, and psychology is that synthesis, and it has its failings, but so does everything else. Nobody ever complains about economics being witchdoctory even though by comparison to economics, psychology is as obvious and straightforward and rigorous and "scientific" as chemistry. The hate on psychology is largely a meme, articulations of which rarely come paired with either a critical understanding of the field, a critical understanding of related fields, a critical understanding of basic epistemological obstacles, or a critical understanding of how science is done. The funniest thing is that loathing of contemporary psychology is almost always almost immediately followed up by thoughtlessly and hypocritically unscientific opinion-shilling, that A, B, and C are obvious truths about the human condition, when the entire problem with psychology is that it addresses some of the most complex and difficult questions there are, and just defaulting to old opinions without more seriously evaluating them is disingenuous and stupid
