Is psychology a science? (Page 4)
CoIin: We seem to miss the fact that psychology includes a lot of "hard science". Like study of sensory input. It's not all about why people do what they do.
oh_good_laughs: Hartlet, perhaps, yes. I've had explained to me that some therapies could last years for a person to 'unleash' (if you will) the things that are troubling them. Often times these things will be locked away in the subconscious.
Harlet: I am not a heartless person, i realize there are folks troubled by experiences they aren't well with having had,having a restless spirit if you will, can cause a person too live uneasily with in their own lives....A fear of "GOD" can cause apprehensions and angst. being brutalized in some fashion can cause all manner of hindrance's too a person...and is why,psychology biology and medical sciences go hand in hand .... were not just affected by what we eat, we are also affected by what we think.....
(Edited by Harlet)
spankdmonkey: A psychologist hmmm most would be nothing more then a glorified counssellor ,Unless they are a bit higher up like a doctor or proffesor of psychology .All a psych does is refer back to case notes from bygone eras .For instance if i was doing a psych test i could not really give my own opinion even if i based it on my personal studies,and for this day and age , because them studies would have to be passed after being scrutinised and tested ,
So i would not score in a test .I would have to quote a prior psych for instance feilding and smith in 1955 discovered that after imense therapy etc etc ..You look over the years at some of the quacks that have had new methods like shock therapy ,Induced sleep therapy where they make you sleep for upto six months at a time ,Halucogens,,other drugs Sleep deprivation ,Its not science its trial and error .Stuffing around with peoples lives by crackpots that swear by their theorys ..,It is classed as a behavior science but isn"t it realy someone going to someone else with their problem or behaviour problems .,depression.etc, ,and sitting down and trying to work out how to help???
,Because everyone is a individual and unique so to me that sais no two cases are the same .So how can something be a science where its theorys change from person to person ??
Where is the facts Nothing is based on fact with Phsychology .Two people could go to the same psych with the exact same problem and it works for one and not the other
There is also enviroment types of problems today,
because the enviroment and the world is forever changing .
Psychs are a bit like plastic surgeons glorified doctors, made for the rich and famous to tell there problems to and get a boob job or face lift because they have to much money ,
Lets get real here are yous"e people not aware that you can go to any psychologist and he will write a report on what you are suffering ???,And if you do not know he will make a illnesss up for you all for the price of 15 hundred dollars and a couple of psych interviews .Are yous"e not aware of this ??/ Ive known this for over 30 years i thought the whole world knew ..Its deffinately not a science
Matiasrk: IT´S NOT A SCIENCE!!!
Psychologysts believe they are making science, but no psychological sentence is based in demostration, verification or comprobation, unlike formal sciences. Only BEHAVIOUR PSYCHOLOGY or CONDUCTISM base their sentences in the cientific method. The rest is just girl talk and commom sense.
Psychology is NOT a science.
It has far too many components that are utterly unscientific in nature.
brittisuomiseka: Utterly unscientific (cry, cry, cry) components** blah - Well, does Psychology have many components, like *trial and error'' (a vital scientific, experimental**, definitive, aspect of Science) or others like ''statistical analysis'' or various onnovative ''sensory input techniques'' (well done, Colinian! I'm def rooting for you on this one vs. Ignorance)...??
@risen_sun86: now. now. no name-calling k
@everyone else, yep- it's true that Psychology can be confused within the scientific field, however Political Science or Sociology, as well as many other methods of investigation all emplot scientific methodology and therefore can/are classes as scientific by nature. Don't listen to people who believe that Psychologists are wackos, just because a lot of their theories or evaluations touch a nerve with people who'd rather leave Pandora's Box left firmly closed every scientist exists to prove or disprove many hypotheses, as a matter of course... Using a scientific/mathematical argument, many an astrologist stated that they believed the Sun was (and not the Earth), the centre of all gravitational pull, but then the masses and heads of Church especially descried their claims as blasphemy! eg. Copernicus, or check this trailer for an inspirational film upon this same topic - YouTube - Science vs. God.
tcare now this discussion is always interesting to re-visit, it's rather stimulating from a Psychological point of view, that's being purely Scientific, mind...
oh_good_laughs: Misek, it isn't science vs. God, this is a cliche.. If we believe in God, we believe God made the natural laws to govern this world, whatever science may believe the mechanisms are. Believing in God, is not rejecting science. But, that doesn't mean we have to believe everything science speculates either, for fear of someone bringing up the remark 'God vs. Science'.. No, science is trying to explain these (natural) laws. God, we believe, is above and behind these laws.
May those who search for God seek him out, and may we not try to throw these people under the bus. God bless.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mental processes. Its immediate goal is to understand individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases. For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit society. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain functions and behaviors. Psychologists explore such concepts as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Some, especially depth psychologists, also consider the unconscious mind.a Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists—at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. Psychology incorporates research from the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities, such as philosophy.
CoIin: Well, this is the problem with definitions. A dictionary will only tell you how the word is commonly used. A stricter, philosophical definition requires a set of necessary and sufficient conditions (see "demarcation" earlier in this thread). So far, no one has been able to come up with a satisfactory set of such criteria to separate "science" from "non-science" or "pseudo-science".
So... * drum roll* is psychology a science?
Ans: Whatever gets you through the night, baby
OK, we can all go home now. Nothing to see here, folks.
memberX: sure...skepticism is a form of psy...desturbances...doubt, disbelief, uncertainty...?
as for definitions ---->The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
How ever, im sure that Psychology... is a science, cause I've seen it and I believe it is...its crystal clear to me.
Then explain how one psychologist can observe a person's behavior, and arrive at reasons for that behavior, and describe treatment for that behavior ...
... yet another psychologist can also observe that person's behavior, and arrive at completely different reasons for that behavior, and describe totally different treatment for that behavior.
CoIin: @ SITS
You might be referring to the Freud/Adler style of psychoanalysis. In their day they were considered to be doing "science". Then it was noticed by people like Karl Popper that they would use almost anything as supporting evidence for their theories. Eg. "He saved that child because of low self-esteem" and "He killed that child because of low self esteem". These days I think few people consider their work to be "scientific".
Or you might be referring to two psychologists/psychiatrists arriving at different diagnoses for the same patient. Yes, of course that happens. But it happens in all medicine. Medicine is a complex "science" (like meteorology) and therefore we cannot expect the same accuracy as we do from, say, physics. Should mainstream medicine be considered "unscientific"?
You're right. In many areas, psychology does not offer good predictive power vis-a-vis the behavior of any given individual. But then again, quantum physics is the same. However, they both offer excellent predictive power over large samples. If the objection to psychology being a science due to its probabilistic (or "stochastic" as they say) nature, then quantum physics will have to go too.....
"Or you might be referring to two psychologists/psychiatrists arriving at different diagnoses for the same patient. Yes, of course that happens. But it happens in all medicine."
I am. And I'm just generalizing about what you're alluding to. And to a lesser degree, medicine is the same, as you say.
"Get a second opinion" is the oft-heard phrase.
I'm not saying psychology has no value, and I'm certainly not saying that about medicine. But both (psychology to a far greater degree) have a quality of being an "art" or a "craft," something that is less precise, has less of the "same input results in the same output" quality of other more sciencey sciences.
When you a "science" where one highly esteemed expert can say, "He acts that way because of his mother" and you have another highly esteemed expert say "He acts that way because he listened to Black Sabbath" ...
Other sciences have situations where two experts disagree, and usually, upon deeper investigation by others, as better tools of investigation become available, etc. one of them is proven wrong, the other right. With those two highly esteemed experts I just described, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM is totally full of shit ... but that'll never be proven.
brittisuomiseka: @ SIS: how many *Scientists are there in the world, how many could be disproven (or proven as *full of shit, foul language there, maybe use of Sixties vapours clogging up your brain) ?
this is boring me now, this feed, as the discussion seems to be dragged up by people like SISsy man here, who firmly agrees to disagree, thus creating more to read - and psychologically, we get no place in a no man's land of replies, since some people are not moving on [with the time/debate].....
@risen_sun86: totally respect your views, but God vs. Science is not just a perpetual conondrum brought up by non-believers to *take the Light from His children, it's just an actual fact that some biblical *truths have been refuted over and over by Scientists. Then again, I've met some interesting Scientists who BELIEVE in God also I'd never throw anyone under the bus, as I'm not a violent, distructive person.....
I'm outa here now, never to dig up this feed (DISPITE; it's interesting qualities) again..... BON CHANCE !!