Is psychology a science? (Page 7)

Sorang
Sorang: .... are you drunk?
12 years ago Report
0
Nicorrette
Nicorrette: no ...Im more nice than u even if I may sound periorative!
12 years ago Report
0
Nicorrette
Nicorrette: listen Soran ...for a science to be sciene it must :2)existing a deondology!what does this means?u can not speak aberation from your head just to define the term ,but before existing the methods and instruments to fallow path ,to make researchals for science,so deondology ,is teh science of how to use psihology in real life ,it is was an instrument of getting better the pacient,I think this deondology it teaches u how to view psihology from your own terms and how to use it following some rules~
12 years ago Report
0
Sorang
Sorang: sorry if you're offended. but psychology only a subset of science, it wont define science as overall. just my 2 cents. now I will shut up.

have a nice day.
12 years ago Report
0
Likeitornot
Likeitornot: You can turn anything into science even psychology.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

You can PRETEND anything is science, even psychology.

And for Christ's sake, is that person retarded, dyslexic, or the worst typist in the universe?

12 years ago Report
2
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Guys, guys.. psychology is experimental science.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

It has a "statistical" quality to it. When the "sample" it's applied to is large, it's very science-like. When the sample it's applied to is small - specifically, the individual - it's arguably not science at all.

When two psychologists can examine the same individual, yet arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions, and neither is more credible than the other ... that's not science.

12 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Science is not math, Sits.
12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Science is all about wearing a dirty lab coat
12 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: Unless you're a theoretical physicist. Then you just dress poorly in general.
12 years ago Report
0
Likeitornot
Likeitornot: Is Social science Psychology? lol Yes you can turn anything into science.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

risen says:
"Science is not math, Sits."

It's certainly not limited to math. But science also isn't necessarily anything you simply decide is science. Math is certainly the backbone of science. I'd go so far as to say that the less that math is involved in the endeavor, the less "science" it is.

Here's the Wiki definition of science:
"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."

That definition works really well when applied to large groups of people.

Not so well when applied to the individual.

Science strives for objectivity. Applying it to large groups makes that possible. You can make measurements. You can apply math. You can test your explanations and arrive at predictable results.

Psychology, applied to the individual, often is completely subjective. No measurements. No math. Explanations that can be nothing but an opinion based on nothing besides whim.

This is not to say that psychology could never develop into what I would think of as science. But it hasn't arrived there yet.

(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Darwinism predicts nothing. Um, not to be argumentative
12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: When we talk of science,we tend to think of "heroic science". 99.9% is stultifying drudgery.

* goes to build a rocket *
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

I disagree. You could observe one type of organism, determine the aspects of it that conform to the concept of Natural Selection, and predict that another organism will share the same qualities.

But I catch your drift.

That description of science contains more than the aspect of predictable results.

12 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I think Darwinism retrodicts well. But not predict well. And happy new year, ole pal
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Happy New Year, C.

12 years ago Report
1
Nicorrette
Nicorrette: listen Sixtees stuck ,I might be retarded,dislexic and bad typer but u even if u speak right grammar I xan t undersatnd u!
12 years ago Report
0
Nicorrette
Nicorrette: cant understand it!
12 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits, so Wikipedia says this, eh?.. You are very trusting of this site, yes?.. hmm

Well then, to continue here, Wiki states that psychology is "the study of the mind.. grounded in science".. it even goes as far to call Psychologist - "social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist".
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

"GROUNDED in science." Not a branch of science.

Astrology is also grounded in science. (That wasn't fair, I know. But it makes a point.)

And as I've said, when applied to large groups, it's science.

Even medicine is like this, but much less so.

12 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Grounded in science.. would make something science, yes?.. anyone?
12 years ago Report
0
Likeitornot
Likeitornot: Risen I kind of think along your lines.

Is sport science since there is science in sport, yet it is sport because you don’t know the outcome BUT most of the time you can predict the outcome to some certainty by the stats. that was confusing hehehehe!
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

risen says:
"Grounded in science.. would make something science, yes?.. anyone?"

No. Again, astrology is "grounded in science." I don't consider astrology to be science. Do you?

The point that I'm making is that there is science ... and then there is science. There's not really a stark, distinct line that separates them. It's more like a spectrum (not exactly, but sort of).

On one end are things like chemistry, and fundamental physics, where everything is orderly, unerringly follows "laws," and produces utterly predictable results. OPINION is not a part of this sort of "science."

On the other end are things like psychology applied to the individual, where you can have two equally qualified experts make the same exact observations, and arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions. OPINION is the essence of this sort of "science."

From my way of thinking, the chemistry and fundamental physics is unquestionably "science," while the circumstance producing two opposing psychological opinions isn't.

As I said before, medicine is much like this, as well. Any patient with a significant medical condition is advised to get more than one OPINION on their options. If those opinions match perfectly, the patient stands a far better chance of having the diagnosis be accurate. If the opinions don't match, the patient is advised to have their condition looked at more deeply. And in that circumstance, in all likelihood, one of those two physicians will be shown to be errant. Maybe even both.

And as I said before, these things become more science-like when they can be put into statistical applications, when the "statistical set" is larger.

Let's again look at the all-too-familiar scenario I criticize, the scenario where two psychologists make the same observation, but arrive at opposing conclusions.

I am guessing that if there was some hypothetical means for there to be a large number of psychologists all making the exact same observation, rather than only two, there would be a greater potential, from a statistical standpoint, or arriving at a more accurate conclusion.

In essence, this is what happens when psychology is applied to large numbers. It then becomes very orderly and predictable.

12 years ago Report
0