Do avoid pointless contradictions. Psychology's goal is to scientifically study the mind -- whether they can actually do that remains an open question.
>> * The mind is not part of nature.
> Asserted without evidence.
That would require proof of a negative, the most common tactic of a pseudoscientist ("You cannot prove Bigfoot false? All right, then -- he exists.") This means the positive burden of evidence for the thesis that the mind is part of nature belongs to psychologists -- it is, after all, their claim.
> Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument.
That's right, and assertions that cannot be falsified, cannot become part of science. This is one reason string theory is in limbo -- no falsifiable experimental validation. This is actually a bad example in modern times, because string theory has pretty much been discarded for multiple reasons, its untestability being just one.
>> * Q.E.D.
> QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects.
Wait ... it's your argument that saying "which was to be demonstrated" has a strict domain of applicability?
> Wrong.
Wikipedia: Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology): "Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior."
Do avoid pointless contradictions. Psychology's goal is to scientifically study the mind -- whether they can actually do that remains an open question.
>> * The mind is not part of nature.
> Asserted without evidence.
That would require proof of a negative, the most common tactic of a pseudoscientist ("You cannot prove Bigfoot false? All right, then -- he exists.") This means the positive burden of evidence for the thesis that the mind is part of nature belongs to psychologists -- it is, after all, their claim.
> Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument.
That's right, and assertions that cannot be falsified, cannot become part of science. This is one reason string theory is in limbo -- no falsifiable experimental validation. This is actually a bad example in modern times, because string theory has pretty much been discarded for multiple reasons, its untestability being just one.
>> * Q.E.D.
> QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects.
Wait ... it's your argument that saying "which was to be demonstrated" has a strict domain of applicability?