Is psychology a science?

Geoff
Geoff: And if it is, can it explain how every thread dissolves into an argument between science and evolution? When the oldest branches of Chsitianity, with the most followers, both accept evolution as 'how God get's things done.'?
12 years ago Report
4
Lady Kane
Lady Kane: God does'nt "get things done" Science and nature do,, it has absolutely nothing to do with "God" If there is one,, I think he'd be pissed off right now,, hmm,, can you tell Im not a Christian,, or is my witch showing,, lol
12 years ago Report
4
Mike_Greene_Jr
Mike_Greene_Jr: First, what's your definition of science... Psychology, specially Behavioral Psychology, does researches using the scientific method, so yes, it is a science. Now this whole science, evolotion and creationism discussions... well, in my opinion it's gotten kind of old and boring already... they are not mutually exclusive if you don't think as one or the other as a dogma. There are certain things that we can generalize in Psychology, such as how people work, how they learn what they do, etc., but how each person works, that's due to each person's personal history, the culture they belong to and, obviously, their genetic.
12 years ago Report
1
Harlet
Harlet: religion means too gather logic.....too understand.................science......................evolution........................psychology... does not stand alone ,you have too add physical medicine too the psychology mix, mind and body go hand and hand.........................................don't leave the supernatural......... OUT.............it explains nature and instincts,of the species and their abilities too communicate..................all of the above require that you ..................gather logic........................................... the arguments erupt.....from folks assuming your coming from roman catholicism.southern baptistism ,judeaism islamism.irish and english protestestism................from some born again evangleicism...............folks hear the word christian and they figure pounce.tear apart........yet.all is not lost here with in wire ville......folks are talking.agree-ing to disagree.........PEACE........and Geoff, i haven't said anything fresh and new too you and too or anyone that follows these type of threads................................................personalities are clashing..................ideology.........blah blah............................................................................................ later..................
12 years ago Report
1
Comrade_
Comrade_: I don't understand how some branches of Christianity view Evolution as "how God get's things done" when it clearly states in the Bible that God created man then woman and the Theory of Human evolution clearly states that mankind developed gradually by natural selection. It's either you support one or you support the other, can't try to blend it.

12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I don't get why it always seems to be creationism vs evolution. Why not creationism vs geology? Or cosmology. Or archeology. Or.......
(Edited by CoIin)
12 years ago Report
0
Karma
Karma: Simple Jack, those people believe in God and believe the Bible is allegorical, especially the Old Testament.
12 years ago Report
0
CJ_Dallas
CJ_Dallas: nope its a religion
12 years ago Report
0
Harlet
Harlet: why is it..folks can understand the use of the phrase.full circle.in poetry,and psychology.and can't put our mortal organic evolution,into content.Is there not more too our minds than we are comprehending..Colinian,I enjoy your commentary,science no matter how you,slice it,dice it,or chop it, was created by all the right component's coming together.In the first place.then one step after another began.Jack. Men tried too tell us that a "GOD' first created men,then woman......when that "GOD' speaks for itself.says he created in HIS/HER own image first .too serve and companion.HIM/HER...............Our early evolution ancestors were hermaphrodites,whose penis bones were delicate,and rarely found with skeleton remains..LUCY.is the most complete skeleton remains found, that science is telling us evolution-ized into the so called missing link,they took her DNA......went around the world and did random dna testing.......we all carry LUCY'S dna in our deepest genes.........................................................
(Edited by Harlet)
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Harlet before you get on your Feminist Horse, please note that I specifically said "states in the Bible" The book states that God created Adam then Eve, I didn't write that book neither am I debating anything on that book. The OP stated Christians and Christians follow the Bible (to my knowledge) that is why I mentioned that book.

Thank you Karma for the explaination, I understand what you mean. It is still a bit vague to me as to why one part becomes symbolic whilst others are not.
12 years ago Report
0
Harlet
Harlet: what's a feminist .............i am first and fore most a human being.who then so happens too be female.................. i was just disputing what men would have other men believe...................is the word of "GOD' and what that "GOD" say is his/her word.......................Christianity............... was a way too explain too the masses at large how too be gracious before said of "GOD" and there by be treated with GRACIOUSNESS....by said of "GOD" ... how ever one gets it. is how they achieve it.and i am one of many who like being right up behind them........
(Edited by Harlet)
12 years ago Report
0
Zoey234
Zoey234: Geoff......thank you for putting it so concisely and adding some cleverness for entertainment value.... **tips hat**
12 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: Jack, it is the opinion of both the Catholic church and the Anglican church that the story of creation is (as Karma pointed out) allegorical.

The Church of England had accepted Darwinian evolution before On the origin of species was published, and the Catholic church accepted it within a century of publication (which isn't bad, it took them 400 years to accept Galileo).

While I see it as these august bodies recognising a fight they can't win, I do understand how an appreciation for the wonders of the universe that science can engender easily lives beside the belief in a divine being.

Which makes me wonder why some fundamentalists insist on trying to fight against the evidence. It just makes them look crazy.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Although psychology is considered a science, I have a very difficult time considering it as such unless it is applied to large groups of people. Applied to individuals, it can be no more science than something like astrology ... utterly subjective.

Applied to large groups, psychology can be extremely reliable. It's how elections are won. It's how hamburgers are sold.

Applied to the individual, it can be worse the worthless, actually harmful. And it's totally subjective. Consider a criminal trial where the prosecution trots out a psychology "expert," with well established credentials, etc. that has made a determination, and states that to the jury. The the defense trots out their own psychology "expert," again, with well established credentials, etc. that has also made a determination, and states that to the jury.

If it were science, those two "experts" would have the same determination. But in that setting, they have made determinations that are diametrically opposed.

This is not science.

But I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that in many cases, psychology can be of great help to individuals. (And also great harm.)

I don't consider it science. I suppose you could call it a craft, or perhaps an art. But not science. Not when applied to individuals.

12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: This brings up an interesting question - the whole problem of demarcation (i.e. what is science and what is pseudo-science). It's not as obvious as you might think. Turns out science seems to be like pornography - we can't define it, but we know it when we see it, or at least we think we do. As I understand it, many philosophers of science have given up on the project considering it hopeless.

Any dictionary will provide a lexicographer's definition, ie.how the term is commonly used, but philosophers (and many scientists) obviously would like better than that. But when you start coming up with necessary conditions (for what to keep out if the condition is not met) and sufficient conditions (what to let in if the condition is met) it gets very messy. You'll find that stuff gets let in that you don't want to be in, or else stuff gets left out that you would like to be in.

Yes, astrology is held up as the poster child of pseudo-science. But it does gather data, it does make predictions (not good predictions albeit), etc...Why is it pseudo-science and not "bad" science? If it's bad science, it IS science. Bad coffee is still coffee.

Or despite all the UFO nuts out there, there is a "scientific" SETI program. Why is that science and not pseudo-science? If you have the answer, you're a better woman than the philosophers. I say we keep defining scientists by their lab coats.

edit P.S. as for how this applies to psychology, I dunno.
(Edited by CoIin)
12 years ago Report
0
zuulup
(Post deleted by zuulup 12 years ago)
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge" is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The backbone of science is the repetition of experiments by numerous people that all arrive at the same conclusion. Psychology often fails to do that. Astrology, of course, fails to do that. Just "gathering data" and making predictions in no way defines something as science. Astrology is, indeed, pseudo-science. Fake science. Pretend science.

While SETI uses "scientific" observation as the basis for what it does, SETI doesn't conduct research. SETI certainly has no position on whether or not extra-terrestrial life exists.

12 years ago Report
1
Harlet
Harlet: IF .... there was a realm,as it suggested there is.where existence,exists, not in mortal organic forms,such as ours, are.and that realm existed before ours and our species came into being.aren't we extra-terrestrial beings and life.
12 years ago Report
0
Mike_Greene_Jr
Mike_Greene_Jr: "Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge" is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The backbone of science is the repetition of experiments by numerous people that all arrive at the same conclusion. Psychology often fails to do that"

Psychology does not fail to do that, it does exactely that. If there are two experts that arrive to different conclusions, it's because they're both being paid by different people (prossecution X deffense), so they're sell-outs, basically. Now, there are differences in Psychology, like Behavioral and Psychoanalysis, completely different ways of seeing the same subject. They use different explanations, but they're talking about the same thing. I've read hundreds of articles and done a lot of research, and I can tell, if you're repeting an experiment, it'll be the same outcome, unless you do something wrong. Obviousely, if you're analysing an individual with one type of psychotherapy, and then use the same theory in a different person, it is going to have different outcomes, not because of the theory, but because people are different... But the same theory can be used to explain different individuals, like genetics explaining why we are what we are, and so on.... unless you've actually studied Psychology, you can't really say it is or isn't a science, because you don't really have the knowledge... granted, I do not like Freud, or Jung, or any of that stuff that deals with subconscious, or more subjective matters, that's why I like behaviorism... started with Pavlov and his dogs (not as Psychology, only as experiments on dogs), then went to Watson with his mothodological behaviorism (which isn't accepted anymore), all the way to B.F. Skinner... if you want, look it up. You might still not believe it's a science, but you can't deny the fact we can use the scientific method to do experiments and research.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Psychology is interpretive when it's applied to individuals. Different psychologists can look at the same data and arrive at polar opposite results. It happens all the time, in every imaginable context, not just in a court room.

Mike says:
"If there are two experts that arrive to different conclusions, it's because they're both being paid by different people (prossecution X deffense), so they're sell-outs, basically."

Cynical. You're saying that every psychological "expert" that testifies in a trial is a whore. Some are, undoubtedly, but I doubt that most are. They're likely honest, and rendering an honest opinion. They're not put on the stand because they're willing to say what they're instructed. They're put on the stand because their honest opinion works for the prosecution or defense.

Mike says:
"You might still not believe it's a science, but you can't deny the fact we can use the scientific method to do experiments and research."

I don't deny that. As I said, psychology is scientific when it's applied to large groups of people. When it is used in a statistical capacity, it's VERY scientific, and thus, very reliable.



12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: re "scientific method"

This relates to my earlier post about the problem of demarcation. The scientific method is something of a myth. Different scientists throughout history have used different methods. Even with "scientific methods" you'll still run into difficulties; no matter how you define these methods, you'll find that stuff you don't like slips in, and stuff you would like to be in gets left out.
12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @SITS "The backbone of science is the repetition of experiments by numerous people that all arrive at the same conclusion"

So if a bunch of nuts perform some experiments repeatedly and always arrive at their same wacky conclusion, this is science? Why not? Because they're not "scientists"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I warned you this is tricky business. I'm not bashing science and I'm certainly not defending astrology. I would be delighted to have astrology definitively dismissed as a psuedo-science, but the point is that it's devilishly tricky to explain why.

If you come up with a set of criteria for excluding astrology, I can guarantee you'll also have to exclude some things that we like to think of as good science.
(Edited by CoIin)
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:
colinian says:
"So if a bunch of nuts perform some experiments repeatedly and always arrive at their same wacky conclusion, this is science? Why not? Because they're not "scientists"? "

That strikes me as such a statistical improbability that it's not worth considering. What are the odds that a large number of scientists, all working in the same discipline, are all afflicted by the same nuttiness, and as a result, all arrive at the same nutty conclusion?

colinian says:
"If you come up with a set of criteria for excluding astrology, I can guarantee you'll also have to exclude some things that we like to think of as good science."

Okay. Do that please. What sort "set of criteria"?

12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @ comment 1 - well, you've already assumed "scientificness" in your premise. Isn't that what we're trying to prove?

@ comment 2 - No thanks. I always find combatting the greatest thinkers in the world rather frustrating. You go ahead
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

"comment 1 - well, you've already assumed "scientificness" in your premise. Isn't that what we're trying to prove?"

Elaborate, please.

"comment 2 - No thanks. I always find combatting the greatest thinkers in the world rather frustrating. You go ahead"

Hey, you brought it up! Not me! You're acting like ewarner1 now! This is a variation of the old ...

*** makes a claim / is asked to substantiate said claim / tells skeptic "you go look it up" ***

... syndrome. It don't fly in Wireclub Forums.

(laughs)

12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: well, we were trying to figure out what is scientific and what isn't. You mentioned scientists in your proof. We haven't figured out what they are yet, Which is like saying it's scientific if it's done by scientists. That doesn't show anything. Circular reasoning.

comment 2 - can't be bothered right now. Maybe one day....
(Edited by CoIin)
12 years ago Report
0
Page: 12345678910 ... Last