Is psychology science?

[BrokenDaniel]

You need to broaden your scope of psychology- it's not all about leather couches and a person with a clip board asking you about your mommy issues

Really good point, lots of people seem to forget that on a constant basis. There are some really good therapists out there, with far more emphasis on "doing" rather than "let's talk about that childhood trauma again" that's a really bad stereotype.
Psychology is in many ways a really "new" discipline", that's something to keep in mind too.

 

[say what]

Well i think there is a distinction to be made between psychology and psychiatry

But if you are genuinly interested in finding cures....and for me personally i have heard more sad stories than you would believe...i am definately at a stage now where i really feel that if the tragedies are to lessen then we really need to be taking a new look at our society.....at what it is to be human...at what humans need to be healthy and happy and to then build a society around that

I don't think people want to do that for the most part because many people are in a comfortable rut

They don't want someone rocking the boat and saying that there's work to be done...they'd rather sweep it all under the carpet and drown out the endless stream of tragedies that will ensue

I agree that psychiatry is very different than psychology!

Many of the people I have worked with, am working with, and myself included- are looking for holistic and non-pharmaceutical based therapies for individuals - this are things like mindfulness, nature exposure, memory sensory therapy, exercise therapy - the list goes on. I think psychiatry, because of it's foundation in medicine, relies heavily on medication because they have been typically treating the symptoms rather than curing the illness. However, I've worked with clinicians who are moving to the health prevention and promotion route where they too are focusing on the individual and the causes, rather than just masking them with a medication.

However, with all that said- there is a huge culture issue around mental illness, and I think you highlight a part of that. But, because I know so many people who work first hand with patients and who have a genuine interest in making their life better - on an individual case - it's hard for me to say that there isn't good in it at all

 

[muir]

I don't know what's happening in your country, but in mine there is a lack of spaces to hospitalize people that need it and want it to help them deal with debilitating mental health issues that put them and others in danger so there is no room to to 'incarcerate' people who are subversives. There are very strong laws that make it very difficult to forcibly hospitalize somebody for a mental health issue so the difference between where we are now and where you are suggesting we could be in 5 years is huge and almost impossible to achieve in that time span. I'm not a fan of my present government and I know that our police have imprisoned people who were simply demonstrating and shouldn't have been arrested at all, but none of them ended up in a mental institute. Your idea of where we could be in five years is far-fetched and extremely unlikely. I would rather fight for the rights of people who need help dealing with mental health issues to receive them in a prompt, effective and humane manner than fight for something that is just an imagined idea of what the future could bring.

There are problems with certain aspects of psychiatry and psychology but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is completely irresponsible. I personally don't believe that ADHD is a mental health issue and I know that depression and anxiety can be caused by outside circumstances and I would recommend medication for these types of things only as a last resort but there are many people who have had their lives greatly improved and even saved by receiving the right type of treatment, including medication.

Please listen to what the guy below has to say about his father and his experience with the nazis

This is not fantasy, this is not imagination...this is real

All the signs are there to suggest that the US and other countries are drifting steadily into a police state. The US has passed a law called the NDAA which categorises US soil as the battleground which means that the US military can now be deployed against its own people. They can now legally arrest and detain and torture any citizen indefinately without trial

Journalist Chris Hedges along with some other people have launched a legal battle to have the section of the NDAA which permits the indefinate detention of US citizens annulled but at the moment it is being upheld by the courts

Now you tell me if everything is hunky dory in the US why the government would pass a law like that?

Can you tell me why they are spying on the entire populace? Why they are militarising the police with machine guns and armoured personel carriers, why the department of homeland security are buying millions of bullets and shot gun cartridges, why the government is trying to disarm the public, why they are now flying drones over US soil? Why they have passed new 'terror' laws like the so called 'patriot act' why the TSA are frisking people at airports, why there are more and more police road checks and stop and searches, why there are more and more cases of police brutality and shootings of unarmed civilians? Why there are FEMA camps being built full of plastic coffins?

You want to tell me that nothings going on?

[video=youtube;_-iYngr6N60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-iYngr6N60[/video]

 

[New Dawn Fades]

It doesn't. Just search for the definition of science. I won't post it myself, so you can say I post my own definition.

The point is... there are many definitions. We need some common ground to have a proper discussion.

Of course psychology is about helping people. All the planet has good intentions, isn't it? I mean that's what I learned from my granny. Of course "it's a lot about treating and helping people". Thanks for reminding me this.

Sorry, but this notorious pessimism doesn't help anyone either.

 

[muir]

I agree that psychiatry is very different than psychology!

Many of the people I have worked with, am working with, and myself included- are looking for holistic and non-pharmaceutical based therapies for individuals - this are things like mindfulness, nature exposure, memory sensory therapy, exercise therapy - the list goes on. I think psychiatry, because of it's foundation in medicine, relies heavily on medication because they have been typically treating the symptoms rather than curing the illness. However, I've worked with clinicians who are moving to the health prevention and promotion route where they too are focusing on the individual and the causes, rather than just masking them with a medication.

However, with all that said- there is a huge culture issue around mental illness, and I think you highlight a part of that. But, because I know so many people who work first hand with patients and who have a genuine interest in making their life better - on an individual case - it's hard for me to say that there isn't good in it at all

I am all for non drug related assistance...i am all for it

But for a shift to occur on a grand scale would require everyone to break the cosy relationship between psychiatry-big pharma-government

 

[say what]

It doesn't. Just search for the definition of science. I won't post it myself, so you can say I post my own definition.

Psychology meets all the definitions of the scientific method - this is why I want to know yours, as you seem to think it doesn't. Either you have a different definition, or you misunderstand psychology.

No, that was not the point.
No, the story was not by itself.

You referenced a story that talked about Freudian psychotherapy. This is only one of many therapy techniques, and, from what I've read, it's not regarded highly by many therapists nowadays.

So, the reality is, you posted a misinformed story, highlighting a horrible stereotype of a field you narrowly define.

Of course psychology is about helping people. All the planet has good intentions, isn't it? I mean that's what I learned from my granny. Of course "it's a lot about treating and helping people". Thanks for reminding me this.

? Again...this makes no sense. Just because I'm pointing out that I believe you're wrong and misinformed, doesn't mean I have a naive understanding or perspective of the world. You should go back and read the posts I have made in here - I have clearly stated that there is a long history of misuse and tragedy in psychology...but it's completely inaccurate to say that all of psychology is like that, especially today when there is continually good outcomes that are generated from therapy and psychology-based research.

If you would like to read more up-to-date information on psychology, and some of the current 'scientific' research that goes on in the field, I would be happy to provide you with links. But from your response

Ugh, there is alot to talk about this, but I'm so lazy...

I feel it would be a waste of my time. I'm open to hearing the other side of the debate - [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] posts great information rather than personal conjuncture, which I appreciate. But if you're just going to say "this is my opinion, and this is how it is" and not be open to new information or provide information to substantiate your claims, then it's not much of a discussion...for me, if feels as if I'm just lecturing you ...

 

[say what]

I am all for non drug related assistance...i am all for it

But for a shift to occur on a grand scale would require everyone to break the cosy relationship between psychiatry-big pharma-government

I agree. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen easily or quickly...which is unfortunate. But there are psychologists out there that are trying to understand how other therapies can help!

 

[La Sagna]

Please listen to what the guy below has to say about his father and his experience with the nazis

This is not fantasy, this is not imagination...this is real

All the signs are there to suggest that the US and other countries are drifting steadily into a police state. The US has passed a law called the NDAA which categorises US soil as the battleground which means that the US military can now be deployed against its own people. They can now legally arrest and detain and torture any citizen indefinately without trial

Journalist Chrish Hedges along with some other people have launched a legal battle to have the section of the NDAA which permits the indefinate detention of US citizens annulled but at the moment it is being upheld by the courts

Now you tell me if everything is hunky dory in the US why the government would pass a law like that?

Can you tell me why they are spying on the entire populace? Why they are militarising the police with machine guns and armoured personel carriers, why the depratment of homeland security are buying millions of bullets and shot gun cartridges, why the government is trying to disarm the public, why they are now flying drones over US soil? Why they have passed new 'terror' laws like the so called 'patriot act' why the TSA are frisking people at airports, why there are more and more police road checks and stop and searches, why there are more and more cases of police brutlaity and shootings of unarmed civilians? Why there are FEMA camps being built full of plastic coffins?

You want to tell me that nothings going on?

[video=youtube;_-iYngr6N60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-iYngr6N60[/video]

The US is not my country. One of the most common characteristic of Canadians is that we love to point out that we are not American and to explain how we are different. Whenever our government changes policy or passes laws that seem to be catering to the US there is a fair bit of backlash. It is not a secret that our current Prime-Minister would like us to be more like the US and has created some policies to try to do that but even he has had to temper his ideas because he knows that if he went too much in that direction his political party would be decimated in the next election.

Beside that, do you have any proof that people are being incarcerated in mental health institutes in Canada or in the US simply for being a subvervise? I don't know the laws regarding institutionalization of the mental ill in the states but I do know that in Canada it is more likely that people who should be institutionalized aren't then the other way around. It is very difficult to forcibly hold anybody. Even people who have killed people during psychotic episodes usually aren't held for what would be considered very long if they respond well to medication. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ound_bus_passenger_gets_unescorted_trips.html

Mental health patient rights are quite well protected here.

 

[muir]

I have to agree with @La Sagna ...this is not what happens here in Canada presently. It's true, that some decades ago, this was an issue - but it's not the issue now...UNLESS you are an extreme case where you may harm yourself or others. But the use of restraints in this case is no more wrong or right than the use of restraints for people who experience violence and/or rage with dementia. Sometimes this is the 'safer' or 'kinder' approach, than allowing them to hurt themselves or another person. In these instances, the immediate concern for harm trumps any investigate of the cause - once they are safe, then it's time to understand why they are like this...sometimes it's not because of illness at all- you would be surprised at how many people are committed to hospitals because of drug induced psychosis.

Once you are admitted how do you get out?

If you decide to leave and they have you held their under the mental health act....you will be detained

You can be dissapeared into the system

Ezra Pound was locked up. He had to get Eustace Mullins to investigate the federal reserve for him

The book catch 22 is all about how the authorities trap people using psychiatry:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 56, ch. 5)

Don't think that canada is squeaky clean by the way...it's government is totally corrupt and it has a history of illegal human experimentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the "psychic driving" concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York, to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKUltra experiments there. These research funds were sent to Dr. Cameron by a CIA front organization, the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, and as shown in internal CIA documents, Dr. Cameron did not know that the money originated from the CIA.[SUP][42][/SUP] In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His "driving" experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions.[SUP][43][/SUP] His treatments resulted in victims' incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[SUP][44][/SUP] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist William Sargant at St Thomas' Hospital, London, and Belmont Hospital, Surrey, who was also involved in the Intelligence Services and who experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[SUP][45][/SUP]
It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Cameron had also been a member of the Nuremberg medical tribunal in 1946–47.[SUP][46][/SUP]
Naomi Klein argues in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to the MKUltra project was actually not about mind control and brainwashing, but about designing "a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture." Citing Alfred W. McCoy, Klein further writes that "Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Dr. Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method

 

[TinyBubbles]

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.

Pretty much this.

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

By the way, my son went to see a psychiatrist for depression and anxiety and the psychiatrist left it up to him as to whether he wanted to take medication or not and there was no pressure. Her recommended that he see a therapist who does Cognitive Behaviour Therapy which has been shown to be quite effective. I have nothing bad to say about the way this psychiatrist handled himself with my son. I just wish my son had attended more session for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy because I think it could help him even more than it has. Even one session made a difference.

 

[muir]

The US is not my country. One of the most common characteristic of Canadians is that we love to point out that we are not American and to explain how we are different. Whenever our government changes policy or passes laws that seem to be catering to the US there is a fair bit of backlash. It is not a secret that our current Prime-Minister would like us to be more like the US and has created some policies to try to do that but even he has had to temper his ideas because he knows that if he went too much in that direction his political party would be decimated in the next election.

Beside that, do you have any proof that people are being incarcerated in mental health institutes in Canada or in the US simply for being a subvervise? I don't know the laws regarding institutionalization of the mental ill in the states but I do know that in Canada it is more likely that people who should be institutionalized aren't then the other way around. It is very difficult to forcibly hold anybody. Even people who have killed people during psychotic episodes usually aren't held for what would be considered very long if they respond well to medication. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...nd_bus_passenger_gets_unes corted_trips.html

Mental health patient rights are quite well protected here.

You ARE american...you are as much an american as a mexican, a US person, a guatamalan, a peruvian etc

You are a canadian american but you come from the americas

But anyway that's perhaps a pedantic point....

Your harper government is completely in bed with the zionists. Also canada is very much under the auspices of the round table network

You are not distinctly apart from the US and they are looking to destroy your national soveriegnty anyway. NAFTA is just a stepping stone in that process

The globalists want to get rid of the borders between canada, the US and mexico and they want to give you a single currency the 'amero'

[video=youtube;6hiPrsc9g98]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98[/video]

 

[say what]

Once you are admitted how do you get out?

If you decide to leave and they have you held their under the mental health act....you will be detained

You can be dissapeared into the system

Ezra Pound was locked up. He had to get Eustace Mullins to investigate the federal reserve for him

The book catch 22 is all about how the authorities trap people using psychiatry:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 56, ch. 5)

Don't think that canada is squeaky clean by the way...it's government is totally corrupt and it has a history of illegal human experimentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the "psychic driving" concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York, to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKUltra experiments there. These research funds were sent to Dr. Cameron by a CIA front organization, the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, and as shown in internal CIA documents, Dr. Cameron did not know that the money originated from the CIA.[SUP][42][/SUP] In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His "driving" experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions.[SUP][43][/SUP] His treatments resulted in victims' incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[SUP][44][/SUP] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist William Sargant at St Thomas' Hospital, London, and Belmont Hospital, Surrey, who was also involved in the Intelligence Services and who experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[SUP][45][/SUP]
It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Cameron had also been a member of the Nuremberg medical tribunal in 1946–47.[SUP][46][/SUP]
Naomi Klein argues in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to the MKUltra project was actually not about mind control and brainwashing, but about designing "a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture." Citing Alfred W. McCoy, Klein further writes that "Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Dr. Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method

I have never believe psychology in Canada or anywhere have always been perfect - in fact, much of the eugenics pushed in Canada up until the late 70's was driven by psychology. My point is that these are instances from several decades ago, and the discipline, practice, justice, politics, policies, etc. have drastically changed since then. Saying that in the 1950's such and such happened and that this means today's psychology is bad, is incorrect - as SO much as happened since then.

Within Canada when someone is admitted to the hospital for psychosis they are undertaken by a team of a variety of help professionals. These professionals, together, determine the course of care. There is a substantial amount of work put into rehabilitation here in Canada, and the transition between being an inpatient to an outpatient. It's not perfect, but the times where people are admitted and then lost are very rare- from my understanding.

 

[LucyJr]

Psychology meets all the definitions of the scientific method - this is why I want to know yours, as you seem to think it doesn't. Either you have a different definition, or you misunderstand psychology.

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:

"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.



"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology, sociology)."

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.

You referenced a story that talked about Freudian psychotherapy. This is only one of many therapy techniques, and, from what I've read, it's not regarded highly by many therapists nowadays.

So, the reality is, you posted a misinformed story, highlighting a horrible stereotype of a field you narrowly define.

.

? Again...this makes no sense. Just because I'm pointing out that I believe you're wrong and misinformed, doesn't mean I have a naive understanding or perspective of the world. You should go back and read the posts I have made in here - I have clearly stated that there is a long history of misuse and tragedy in psychology...but it's completely inaccurate to say that all of psychology is like that, especially today when there is continually good outcomes that are generated from therapy and psychology-based research.

If you would like to read more up-to-date information on psychology, and some of the current 'scientific' research that goes on in the field, I would be happy to provide you with links. But from your response

Ugh, there is alot to talk about this, but I'm so lazy...
I feel it would be a waste of my time. I'm open to hearing the other side of the debate

Thanks for the offering.
I'm pretty much at current with the methods psychology uses. My aunt if a very popular and respected psychologist in our country.

The things which I've made a decision for I rarely change my mind. I search for a subject in depth, and then I make my conclusions.
As far as I can see, despite all the claims that psychology is actualy a science, and is such a good and awesome science, whcih tries to help people, despite even psychologists trying to defend their field as being a legitimate science desperately, I don't see the "scientific" stuff in it.
And this is not just me, there also many people, even psychologists and psychiatrists.

 

[muir]

@muir

By the way, my son went to see a psychiatrist for depression and anxiety and the psychiatrist left it up to him as to whether he wanted to take medication or not and there was no pressure. Her recommended that he see a therapist who does Cognitive Behaviour Therapy which has been shown to be quite effective. I have nothing bad to say about the way this psychiatrist handled himself with my son. I just wish my son had attended more session for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy because I think it could help him even more than it has. Even one session made a difference.

I spoke to a psychologist when i worked at the hospital and she worked in cognitive therapy and it sounded promising. i don't know enough about it to say more but i think it was good that your sons psychiatrist didn't hand him out drugs. That is just one case though and the global trade in anti-depressants is a multi-billion dollar industry

Big pharma has been caught bribing doctors (eg Glaxo smith klein) and they have been given small fines for also pushing drugs that are not effective and/or harmful

 

[muir]

I have never believe psychology in Canada or anywhere have always been perfect - in fact, much of the eugenics pushed in Canada up until the late 70's was driven by psychology. My point is that these are instances from several decades ago, and the discipline, practice, justice, politics, policies, etc. have drastically changed since then. Saying that in the 1950's such and such happened and that this means today's psychology is bad, is incorrect - as SO much as happened since then.

Within Canada when someone is admitted to the hospital for psychosis they are undertaken by a team of a variety of help professionals. These professionals, together, determine the course of care. There is a substantial amount of work put into rehabilitation here in Canada, and the transition between being an inpatient to an outpatient. It's not perfect, but the times where people are admitted and then lost are very rare- from my understanding.

MKUltra didn't stop in the 1970's...it's still going

The techniques they used and are still using to torture people in abu ghraib and guantanamo (and elsehwere) have been taken form those programmes

Bare in mind this is as much about the potential for abuse of the system as it is about how things are currently done

 

[muir]

Once you're in how do you get out? The THUD experiment

[video=youtube;qKWnfM33SaE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKWnfM33SaE[/video]

 

[say what]

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:

"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.



"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology, sociology)."

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.


.


Thanks for the offering.
I'm pretty much at current with the methods psychology uses. My aunt if a very popular and respected psychologist in our country.

The things which I've made a decision for I rarely change my mind. I search for a subject in depth, and then I make my conclusions.
As far as I can see, despite all the claims that psychology is actualy a science, and is such a good and awesome science, whcih tries to help people, despite even psychologists trying to defend their field as being a legitimate science desperately, I don't see the "scientific" stuff in it.
And this is not just me, there also many people, even psychologists and psychiatrists.

When read in it's entirety, that article makes the point that while psychology might not always meet the strict terms of the scientific methods, neither do many other 'sciences'. Thus, if you believe that psychology is not scientific based on this reasoning, you must also believe that fields such as chemistry and biology are also not scientific.

 

[say what]

MKUltra didn't stop in the 1970's...it's still going

The techniques they used and are still using to torture people in abu ghraib and guantanamo (and elsehwere) have been taken form those programmes

Bare in mind this is as much about the potential for abuse of the system as it is about how things are currently done

But is this psychology, or is this the military using psychology?

I won't discount that there are people currently out there misusing psychology- but I believe that it's a smaller percentage than the overall psychologists that are working out there.

Just as there are organizations and governments using chemistry and biochemistry for harm - yet there's also lots of extremely important and positive movements in these fields. But we don't discount them entirely because of the bad apples.

 

[LucyJr]

When read in it's entirety, that article makes the point that while psychology might not always meet the strict terms of the scientific methods, neither do many other 'sciences'. Thus, if you believe that psychology is not scientific based on this reasoning, you must also believe that fields such as chemistry and biology are also not scientific.

yeah, many fields of study are not scientific. and many are. psychology is not even close of being one of them.