Is psychology science?

[say what]

Thought it would be interesting to discuss the credibility of science - as this is a site based on a psychology typology tool.

What is science? How do we define it? How do we measure it?
Does the 'scientific method' employed in psychology match the scientific method for other disciplines?
Can an applied discipline be scientific?


[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] , thought it might be an interesting discussion to have - but didn't want to derail the other thread

 

[sprinkles]

It can be science from an inductive standpoint. Some psychology (maybe a lot?) is only hocus pocus but it is possible to be scientific about it.

If you can observe phenomena and their effects, and you can experimentally repeat them, then you can make some predictions about them. Like with gravity

But how does gravity actually do that?

 

[Rift Zone]

Thought it would be interesting to discuss the credibility of science - as this is a site based on a psychology typology tool.

What is science? How do we define it? How do we measure it?

Science is our legitimate attempt to describe the nature of physical reality. We measure its worth against what Mother Nature alone says. If a theory cannot make testable predictions no one should believe it.

Does the 'scientific method' employed in psychology match the scientific method for other disciplines?
Can an applied discipline be scientific?

No. Yes. Hard sciences are usually more deterministic. Except QM... and that's what your dealing with! Brain state is a harmony for one. No one's architecture is the same. And the whole system will subject to Quantum Mechanical activity. You'e kinda screwed if you want definitive answers that will always apply. Still, behaviors are motivated and influenced by knowable factors. It's a different type of science but it's still science. It still tells us about actual properties of the universe. <--Thus it qualifies.

 

[Barnabas]

The answer is mostly sometimes, on it's good days. On it's bad days it's performing experiments that lock monkey's in isolation holes and pelting them with food every now and again.

 

[j654dgj7]

Psychology is a research based way of trying to understand the human mind. Like most sciences it is empirical - meaning that they make a study where they first come up with a hypothesis (fx. "is being good to children better than hitting them?") and they then experiment, collect data from people who are applicable to the hypothesis, go hit their own children to see how they react, etc. etc. etc. Eventually they will come to a conclusion after they see a clear enough pattern with enough participants to make the study representative of the many different types of minds that there are.

It's the best way that we have right now. We can't tell much about each other by looking at a brain through a magnifying glass

 

[hk427f3]

These days, psychology is science. In the past, not as much.

What is science? How do we define it? How do we measure it?

Science is when you try to explain or describe what goes on in the universe, and then try to prove yourself wrong. It isn't really quantifiable.

Does the 'scientific method' employed in psychology match the scientific method for other disciplines?

There isn't just one monolithic scientific method. There are a lot of methods that you can use to do science, but they must have a bunch of qualities for them to be actually scientific. And sometimes it's a grey area. Science must be testable, repeatable, falsifiable, and maybe some other things. Methods that fail these are unscientific, and if they are trying hard to look like real science, sometimes called pseudoscience. Sometimes, theories and stuff are called pseudoscience because they are just wrong. So: yes?

Can an applied discipline be scientific?

What is an applied discipline? A plumber could solve a problem in a way that is pretty much scientific. Science is an extension of the mundane ways that we figure stuff out, not something separate.

Psychology is a hard science to do because it deals with things that aren't easily observed, like how you feel.

Anyways, MBTI is not scientific, because it's wrong. Quantum consciousness probably is, too.

 

[Tin Man]

It's a difficult question to answer as it's not clear cut. There are certain aspects of psychology that use observation and experimentation to come up with consistent results. There are others, however which use purely anecdotal or subjective data.

I don't think psychology needs to be a science. It's particular route in understanding the human mind goes beyond purely empirical and measurable means. While it needs to live up to certain standards, forcing too tight a lens on psychology's methods will only result in lessening it's usefulness.

 

[LucyJr]

Thought it would be interesting to discuss the credibility of science - as this is a site based on a psychology typology tool.

What is science? How do we define it? How do we measure it?
Does the 'scientific method' employed in psychology match the scientific method for other disciplines?
Can an applied discipline be scientific?


[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] , thought it might be an interesting discussion to have - but didn't want to derail the other thread

No, I don't think there is something scientific in the real sense of the word in psychology, psychiatry, and social "science".
Tkake for example the unconscious mind. There is such a thing as the uncoscious mind? Ups, this is a dangerous field, because many critics have asked ths question, and the freudians and jungians, and adlerians don't like this question. Because most of psychology theories, most of what is supposed to be mental functioning and mental disease is somehow based on this: the unconscious mind. Which might be inexistent. Or which migh be existent. Or who knows? Or surely is existent, because Freud is a genius of imagination. Therefore, let's "know" it is actualy existent. And let's call it "science", using "the scientific method".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

 

[LucyJr]

There is nothing testable, quantifiable, predictable, reproductable, and exprimentable in the field of psychology.
Someone meantioned the induction methoding, to comep up with some theories. To rely on induction, one first have to have a basis to start from, something inductive, which is clear and is known. Psychologists don't have that. It is not even known if there is a mind which is distinct and independent from the brain, or if the brain is the actual thing that causes all mental process.
Because psychology has big implications. There is a soul? There is a mind? We are just monkeys who search for happiness, in camparation with monkeys who don't search for happiness? All mental precess are reduced to brain?
Of course, the main body of psychology today start from the evolutionistic assumption, that everything what we call thoughts are reductible to matter, and thus to our brain. Or some say, mind is actually a creation of matter, of brain.

Others say something else...that thoughts are a little bit more complex than simply matter, that feelings are bit more sophisticated then chemistry, and that is very possible we might have a soul, a entity which is beyond matter, and we might have a mind. Of course, these guys are the mocked minority, under labells as creationists, religious people and so on, even if that is not usualy true.

Oh, I forgot about morality. A big problem there too.

So yeah, what I'm trying to say is that everything isn psychology is unclear, builded on different basic assumptions, which might be true or not.

 

[j654dgj7]

No, I don't think there is something scientific in the real sense of the word in psychology, psychiatry, and social "science".
Tkake for example the unconscious mind. There is such a thing as the uncoscious mind? Ups, this is a dangerous field, because many critics have asked ths question, and the freudians and jungians, and adlerians don't like this question. Because most of psychology theories, most of what is supposed to be mental functioning and mental disease is somehow based on this: the unconscious mind. Which might be inexistent. Or which migh be existent. Or who knows? Or surely is existent, because Freud is a genius of imagination. Therefore, let's "know" it is actualy existent. And let's call it "science", using "the scientific method".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

You do know that psychology has advanced past Jung and Freud a long time ago, right?

I think we can all agree that Freud and Jung weren't very scientific by today's standards, but they did come up with a lot of interesting hypothesis that a lot of psychologists still use today, as far as I've been told.

 

[muir]

You do know that psychology has advanced past Jung and Freud a long time ago, right?

I think we can all agree that Freud and Jung weren't very scientific by today's standards, but they did come up with a lot of interesting hypothesis that a lot of psychologists still use today, as far as I've been told.

I think they were 'scientific' in the sense that they used large sample bases but they were attempting to quantify unquantifiables

 

[New Dawn Fades]

So yeah, what I'm trying to say is that everything isn psychology is unclear, builded on different basic assumptions, which might be true or not.

That's the struggle of the sciences in general. Every science makes basic assumptions that cannot be explicitely proved. That's a problem, but we have to make assumptions - the risk that they're wrong is always existing. You can find this in psychology as well as in physics, chemistry and medicine.

 

[Radiantshadow]

There is nothing testable, quantifiable, predictable, reproductable, and exprimentable in the field of psychology.

No, I don't think there is something scientific in the real sense of the word in psychology, psychiatry, and social "science".
Tkake for example the unconscious mind. There is such a thing as the uncoscious mind? Ups, this is a dangerous field, because many critics have asked ths question, and the freudians and jungians, and adlerians don't like this question. Because most of psychology theories, most of what is supposed to be mental functioning and mental disease is somehow based on this: the unconscious mind. Which might be inexistent. Or which migh be existent. Or who knows? Or surely is existent, because Freud is a genius of imagination. Therefore, let's "know" it is actualy existent. And let's call it "science", using "the scientific method".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

You clearly haven't done thorough research. Psychology has come a long way since Freud and most of his views have been heavily, heavily criticized and discarded. Mental wellness and illness is not defined by parental relations anymore. The unconscious mind - which was actually proposed by a group of hypnotists right before Freud's time - has been verified repeatedly by cognitive psychology and the cognitive sciences; start with implicit priming and work your way forward into the fields of memory and attention. There's even a televised series called "Brain Games" that provides clear and supported research a la entertainment. There are free recorded psychology courses from Yale and other top-tier universities you can observe on Youtube, as well as free online classes you can take through Coursera and similar sites. Educate yourself.

 

[LucyJr]

You do know that psychology has advanced past Jung and Freud a long time ago, right?

I think we can all agree that Freud and Jung weren't very scientific by today's standards, but they did come up with a lot of interesting hypothesis that a lot of psychologists still use today, as far as I've been told.

You do know that what we call psychology today is based on what Freud has established as a foundaion of psychology, right?
That means if Freud was wrong, and I think he was, 95% of today psychology is illusion. So today psychology is a "logical" outgrow of Freud and Adler illusions, which means...a bigger illusions, a illusion outgrowth, if that is possible.

All that is made perfect by progress perishes also by progress. All that has been weak can never become absolutely strong. We say in vain, “He has grown, he has changed”; he is also the same. - Blaise Pascal

This exactly the problem of psychology. If the foundation is wrong, if the premises are false, then everyhting in it is false.

 

[j654dgj7]

I think they were 'scientific' in the sense that they used large sample bases but they were attempting to quantify unquantifiables

As far as I understand the sample base size is their biggest faux pas by today's standards. I disagree that there's such a thing as a truly unique part of our brains that is unquantifiable. What they did was that they found out that there are different types of brains and ways of thinking. They didn't find one fact and then argued that all brains were the same. The fact is that if we didn't have Freud or Jung's studies, there would be no scientific ways for us to prove that we are different solely based on our personalities. That's sort of their discoveries. Mostly Jung, whereas Freud was more into the subconscious.

Disclaimer: I feel like I'm way in over my head on this subject. Feel free to correct me if you know that I'm wrong. I'm just a guy that took psychology for a few years and didn't love it and sort of stopped. What I know and have worked with is largely negligible.

You do know that what we call psychology today is based on what Freud has established as a foundaion of psychology, right?
That means if Freud was wrong, and I think he was, 95% of today psychology is illusion. So today psychology is a "logical" outgrow of Freud and Adler illusions, which means...a bigger illusions, a illusion outgrowth, if that is possible.

I feel like that's just not true. Modern psychology has proven Freud wrong many times and has thrown out many of his hypothesis. It's moved on to deal with more practical things like past abuse, cognitive therapy, couples therapy, etc. etc. If you asked any psychologist, they would tell you that Freudian psychology is ancient and hopelessly outdated. Most won't tell you that his work was without virtue, but he's no great Messiah to the psychological environment today at all.

All that is made perfect by progress perishes also by progress. All that has been weak can never become absolutely strong. We say in vain, “He has grown, he has changed”; he is also the same. - Blaise Pascal

This exactly the problem of psychology. If the foundation is wrong, if the premises are false, then everyhting in it is false.

That's a beautiful quote, I just wrote it down. He's absolutely right. I just don't agree that modern psychology is a cousin of Freudian/Jung'ian psychology. It has changed so much since then. Ironically, I think one of the reasons that psychology became as huge as it is today has to do with the high profile and celebrity status of the very reluctant celebrity Sigmund Freud. He was an interesting/incredible guy.

 

[LucyJr]

That's the struggle of the sciences in general. Every science makes basic assumptions that cannot be explicitely proved. That's a problem, but we have to make assumptions - the risk that they're wrong is always existing. You can find this in psychology as well as in physics, chemistry and medicine.

Let's just say that we are talking about "science" not as a field of study on different matters, but we are talking about science in what is known to mean testable observations, clear predictions and empirical reliability.
There is a tricky way psychologists try to escape by adjusting the word science, and saying that actualy psychology is a kind of "soft science", which is corectly traslated as pseudo-science.

 

[LucyJr]

You clearly haven't done thorough research. Psychology has come a long way since Freud and most of his views have been heavily, heavily criticized and discarded. Mental wellness and illness is not defined by parental relations anymore. The unconscious mind - which was actually proposed by a group of hypnotists right before Freud's time - has been verified repeatedly by cognitive psychology and the cognitive sciences; start with implicit priming and work your way forward into the fields of memory and attention. There's even a televised series called "Brain Games" that provides clear and supported research a la entertainment.

Well next time when I'm not sure if I had or not done reaserching or "enough research", I am going to ask you if I had or not.
I think I'm going to ask a psychologist, or a hypnotist if I done "enough research".

 

[New Dawn Fades]

Let's just say that we are talking about "science" not as a field of study on different matters, but we are talking about science in what is known to mean testable observations, clear predictions and empirical reliability.

I gave you enough examples of where psychology works in the other thread. Mass behavior, therapy of certain psychological illnesses and so on. Psychologists are doing thousands of studies for a reason. That's empirical science. I don't know what else should it be.

Well next time when I'm not sure if I had or not done reaserching or "enough research", I am going to ask you if I had or not.
I think I'm going to ask a psychologist, or a hypnotist if I done "enough research".

This is unnecessary.

 

[LucyJr]

[video=youtube;gu7NDUc5TD4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu7NDUc5TD4&list=PLD92F98F9DA7D2B74[/video]
[video=youtube;nzdu3WQyIZg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzdu3WQyIZg&list=PLD92F98F9DA7D2B74[/video]

 

[LucyJr]

[video=youtube;QDR3cD8_kck]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDR3cD8_kck&list=PLD92F98F9DA7D2B74[/video]