Psychology anyone?

[Citizen Bleys]

you can't use personal experience as your bias or support to saying "Psychology (as a whole) isn't a science".

Empirical evidence is the basis of scientific discovery.

Science, furthermore, is consistent. It's mathematical. Do the same experiment 10 times, get the same result 10 times. That's what makes science wonderful. Ask 10 psychologists the same question, and you'll usually get at least 3-5 different answers. If you're lucky, one of them will even be right.

The mind (as opposed to the brain, which functions according to logical rules) is too abstract and amorphous to be treated in a mathematical or scientific manner. It's the only thing in nature capable of illogic, which is anathema to scientific, thought. It calls for sophistic (as opposed to socratic), artistic thinking.

Inconsistency and abstraction are as positive a thing in art as they are negative in science.

EDIT: For the record, I was going to simply admit my bias against psychology and leave it at that, but it's been quite edifying to be able to have a conversation like this in a calm, rational manner. It's been too long. Most of my co-workers would have pitched a fit by now

[jenovajunkie]

science
noun
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Psychology is a systematic study
Psychology looks at behaviour of the natural world (people)
Psychology uses observation and experiment.

What part of this definition of science does psychology not fit?

PS - a well designed psychological experiment WOULD give the same results 10 times out of 10. I've also done experiments in physics and not got the same results twice. Is that to say physics is not a science, or rather that Im just a bad physicist?

[Mo-Nercy]

Psychology is the science of behaviour, as they to do experiments and clinical lab studies ect.

You said this a little earlier in the thread. I thought I might comment on this statement.

You can't scientifically calculate or measure behaviour. There are a million and one reasons for why a person might do or think something. And there are a million and one ways to help that person with their problem. Say a person is coming to you presenting with extremely low self-esteem, no energy or desire to do anything and an admission that they've thought about suicide in the past. A practitioner of psychology would probably whack out DSM IV, diagnose them with major depressive disorder, give them anti-depressants and continue to see them whilst drawing from CBT (cognitive behavioural theory) to challenge their self-defeating beliefs.

That's all well and good, but I've encountered plenty of people in my line of work that have been dealt this hand by their shrinks and they don't understand why the meds aren't working. Then they tell me they're in and out of refuges, are long-term unemployed, have had their kids removed by children's services etc. A few weeks later, I could have this person settled down in public housing, starting training to get re-skilled and back in contact with their kids and suddenly - no more depression.

Just because psychology can prove that a specific, isolated behaviour can be 'fixed', it doesn't mean they can do it routinely without fail. Clients are never just faced with one problem, they come to practitioners with multiple, co-occurring issues so it's not as easy as saying "This person has X, so I need to do Y." Those trained in the field of psychology more often than not fall back on solutions focused on individual cognition rather than to do with social issues (at least compared to social workers), so it's not an exact science, because it doesn't take in the whole picture. To claim that it is smurfs all over other practitioners in the human service sector that work just as diligently to help people.

[Madame Adequate]

I actually agree with you in broad terms Bleys, because what you said is basically the same argument I use against determinism. But I don't think the brain is so completely divorced from predictability as to make the... discipline, shall we say - of psychology an entirely futile and useless one. Many people in treatment for any sort of mental issue are likely to go through quite a few of them before the 'best fit' is found, but it does seem to be at least somewhat better than complete guesswork, in my experience; it has been very far from perfect but it has, on balance, been superior to nothing at all. I appreciate that yours was different and that leads you to a different conclusion.

[Citizen Bleys]

science
noun
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Psychology is a systematic study
Psychology looks at behaviour of the natural world (people)
Psychology uses observation and experiment.

What part of this definition of science does psychology not fit?

Systematic: Perhaps you could explain how it is systematic? I'm at a loss as how to address the question.
Behavior of the natural world: Including sentient/sapient* beings in the natural world is debatable. An inanimate object, subjected to the same stimulus, will respond in the same way every time. Human beings will not. Some will do what you don't expect if for no other reason than to bugger up your results.
Observation and experiment: Perhaps, but it's observing human behavior, not something that follows logical rules.

*There really isn't a word that I'm aware of to distinguish human cognition from that of less developed/advanced life.

Psychology is the science of behaviour, as they to do experiments and clinical lab studies ect.

You said this a little earlier in the thread. I thought I might comment on this statement.

You can't scientifically calculate or measure behaviour.

Why didn't I think of phrasing it this way?

There are a million and one reasons for why a person might do or think something. And there are a million and one ways to help that person with their problem. Say a person is coming to you presenting with extremely low self-esteem, no energy or desire to do anything and an admission that they've thought about suicide in the past. A practitioner of psychology would probably whack out DSM IV, diagnose them with major depressive disorder, give them anti-depressants and continue to see them whilst drawing from CBT (cognitive behavioural theory) to challenge their self-defeating beliefs.

What really grinds my gears is how quickly that happens. When one goes to a shrink, one is thinking "There's something wrong with me, I need help" and the shrink is quick to reaffirm that and come up with a scary-sounding diagnosis and maybe dispense some drugs to reinforce the notion that the person is fundamentally flawed, or even that they need drugs to function in society. This leads to a mindset of helplessness and self-despite that will stop a person from trying to help themselves. Yes, support is helpful, sometimes even necessary, but support from a detached professional is worthless. It has to be sincere. This means family and friends. With support from people who actually care about them, a "mentally sick" person has a chance to finally remember how birds first learn to fly; to rage against the perception of them as flawed; to feed on the paradoces* that once paralyzed them; and to spread their wings and prove all of the naysayers wrong. I'm certain this is as close as a normal human being can come to experiencing apotheosis, and the "diagnostic" mentality taken towards the human mind inhibits any sort of progress towards that apotheosis.

*Yes, I googled it. Google is wrong. Letters ending in "x" are pluralized by dropping the -x and adding -ces.

Just because psychology can prove that a specific, isolated behaviour can be 'fixed', it doesn't mean they can do it routinely without fail.

Conversely, if there's a chance to help someone, without the risk of harm, that chance should be taken. The key there though is without the risk of harm. Guess-and-test diagnoses compound the problem.

I actually agree with you in broad terms Bleys, because what you said is basically the same argument I use against determinism. But I don't think the brain is so completely divorced from predictability as to make the... discipline, shall we say - of psychology an entirely futile and useless one.

I don't think of it entirely as futile and useless; just not as a science, and as an art that has the potential to do as much harm as good. It would take someone almost infallible to avoid doing harm. I couldn't do it. You couldn't do it. I'm sure none of us could do it. That level of responsibility, if taken seriously, could be considered as grave and crushing as that which the general shoulders on the battlefield, yet many practitioners of psychology treat it with an attitude that could best be described as cavalier.

There are psychologists out there who can do more good than harm, I'm sure of it. The law of averages demands it. But how the hell do you find them?

Many people in treatment for any sort of mental issue are likely to go through quite a few of them before the 'best fit' is found, but it does seem to be at least somewhat better than complete guesswork, in my experience; it has been very far from perfect but it has, on balance, been superior to nothing at all. I appreciate that yours was different and that leads you to a different conclusion.

It could just as easily have gone the other way--but I've done enough freaking speechwriting for one post, so I'll leave it at that for now.

[Aerith's Knight]

I love bleys, he puts my thoughts into text so eloquently.

[jenovajunkie]

Okay bleys, that was quite good. But when you say "by observing people", yes they do that. But that's not all. They attach electrodes to the head to see what is happening in the brain when presented stimuli. So that is measurable. I'm sick of debating, maybe my points aren't being taken seriously. I'm saying Psychology is a science, and you guys keep bringing up bad psychiatrists. They are not a representation of the entire science. I guess they are just manipulated information for more money.

There is plenty information explaining why psychology is a science. So if you really care go and research. Or we can agree to disagree.

I ask to reason why psychology is not a science, because I still don't see how it isn't.

[Citizen Bleys]

*snip* I'm sick of debating, maybe my points aren't being taken seriously.
*snip* Or we can agree to disagree.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm taking all points seriously; I think this thread is a smashing success regardless of whether anybody changes their mind or even softens their stance because it's the first actual thought-provoking thread I've seen at EoFF in years. I'm enjoying this.

I ask to reason why psychology is not a science, because I still don't see how it isn't.

It's a bit of a cop-out, but Wikipedia: BoP. I'm also not adept enough to prove that cooking, for example, isn't a science, but if chefs start calling themselves scientists, the word will cease to have any meaning.

[docta fizz]

who are horribly, horribly wrong more than 3 times out of 4 refer to themselves as "scientists."

Facts please. You are extremely interested in facts as you attempt to disprove psychology yet you don't mind pulling blind statistics out of your arse (I'm assuming that's where this one came from).

I think some parents trust shrinks a bit too easily when it comes to drugging their kids up.

I agree, ADD/ADHD isn't a new thing. What did we do before we had Ritalin and adderall? We disciplined them more. Some forms of discipline are extremely healthy so please don't flame me for believing a well brought up child is equal to child abuse. It seems to me that kids played outdoors considerably more than they do now. This is true for my neighborhood at least. So it would seem they had more healthy ways of expending energy, being active is also healthier.

Neurology deals with observable things that physically exist in the real world. That's science.

Psychology deals with abstractions that have no basis in physical reality.

Peoples actions and reactions are not abstract, they are very real.
You can't deny that by studying a large group of people's behaviours you will see trends. How far you get with trends becoming diagnosises (spelling?) is beyond me because I've never studied it.

It's a bit of a cop-out, but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof]Wikipedia: BoP

BOP demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.
I'm pretty sure the community (humans in general) believe psychology is a science, not sure how I can convince you of this but the US Judicial system uses them as subject matter experts in court trials as I'm sure countries around the world do also.


Jenova- I've noticed more negativity from this generation than from my own, mostly in the form of language and somewhat in the form of violence. I have no guess as to the stimulous but when I look at my parents generation compared to my own it is the same way. We were more agressive than they were. I'm not talking about just fighting because every generation of kids is rowdy, it seems to me that the limit of agression keeps being pushed farther. It's saddest to see in children.

Kid's are more succeptible to peer pressure and are IMO at a time in their life that they really want to fit in (or stick out) so popular clothing trends are everywhere. I'm pretty sure this area hasn't changed in forever

professeur Rushton from the University of Western Ontario

mmm this is actually one flamestorm I'm not interested in getting involved in... though it is interesting... should anyone want to read the abridged version: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
you can't deny it is interesting... only read half of it because he continues to re-itterate what he said in his opening statement and he doesn't actually include the studies that he has in his book so it doesn't really sway my oppinion more with facts as it emphasizes getting his book.

Keep it up guys but don't flame, this is a love game

[jenovajunkie]

Bleys I'm not softening my or changing my opinion. I'm just fed up with throwing good ACTUAL facts and having them ignored. If you read any of the experiments I talked about, then you would see that psychology is a science. It's definitely not abstract, and I really don't see how it would be.

Unless we are going way back to the dawning of psychology, behaviourism and animism. Ok I agree that roots of psychology were a bit far fetched and "abstract". But every science starts of abstract.

Psychology doesn't only deal with ADD/ADHD, Depression, matters like that, but have found many more disorders and where in the brain controls what. Through many experiments that are not unmeasurable, Bleys.

Also, Empirical evidence is the basis of scientific discovery, that "empirical evidence" are the people observing other people, and some of those "unmeasurable" experiments. I don't think you EVEN KNOW what psychology is. I bet you haven't taken a single psychology course. All you've done Bleys is take what I say, find things to question, but you haven't said anything that proves me otherwise.

Everyone else who supported Bleys just wound up saying the same thing, they gave examples of bad psychiatrists. Claiming that their unmoral actions and corrupt diagnosis, their inability to look deeper in their patients, this why psychology isn't a science.

Now if you want the historical facts about how psychology became a SCIENCE, I am more than glad to do so. But it's lengthy, and I don't know if anything will change in regards to your opinion. I want to know why you think psychology is not a science/ I asked you before, explain yourself.

Big kudoz to docta fizz, for putting everything out on the table. But you are right, it's pointless to argue/debate if no one is going to believe you. Or take a look at someone else's point of view.
Get this I NEVER GAVE UP ON MY OPINION.

[Citizen Bleys]

Was busy yesterday, so I've a lot to respond to today.

Facts please. You are extremely interested in facts as you attempt to disprove psychology yet you don't mind pulling blind statistics out of your arse (I'm assuming that's where this one came from).

That wasn't intended to be read as a statistic, but as a rhetorical device. Statistics seldom work out to such simple, human-friendly rational numbers

What did we do before we had Ritalin and adderall? We disciplined them more. Some forms of discipline are extremely healthy so please don't flame me for believing a well brought up child is equal to child abuse.

Well said. *salute*

Peoples actions and reactions are not abstract, they are very real.
You can't deny that by studying a large group of people's behaviours you will see trends. How far you get with trends becoming diagnosises (spelling?) is beyond me because I've never studied it.

Actions as in physical movement, yes, but the why requires a more abstract, artistic analysis. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with art. It's called for in a case like this. There's a quote that says if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Science should not be the hammer.

BOP demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.
I'm pretty sure the community (humans in general) believe psychology is a science, not sure how I can convince you of this but the US Judicial system uses them as subject matter experts in court trials as I'm sure countries around the world do also.

Many judicial systems do; Something does not have to be a science in order to be valid.

Keep it up guys but don't flame, this is a love game

My thoughts exactly

But every science starts of abstract.

What I've seen is the opposite. Things start as sciences and move towards becoming more abstract; My own field is a primary example. It's called "computer science," but it's not science at all. It's closer to engineering.

Science, at its roots, is mathematics. There are three primary branches of science: Physics, Biology, and Chemistry. Physics is my favorite because it's essentially applied mathematics, so is the purest of the sciences. Engineering is applied physics, but it's reached a level of abstraction where although it uses science quite heavily, it's not quite a science anymore. Likewise with computer science -- it started out in ENIAC's days dealing directly with the physical hardware; you had to know things about physics (specifically electrical physics, like voltages and resistances) in order to use a computer at all. Nowadays, so many levels of abstraction have been added so that you can write full-featured GUI programs in languages that more closely represent English than any direct interface with the computer's hardware.

Neurology, I don't dispute as a science because it's essentially applied biology and chemistry. Psychiatry is more applied chemistry than anything else, so it fits into the Big Three well enough to qualify as a science in my view. Psychology, however, deals with behavior and emotion. These may be caused by chemical reactions, but dealing with them in a non-chemical manner requires a more artistic, individualistic approach. It's more like cooking. Say Julie loves ham, so she experiments and comes up with what she think is the perfect pizza. Steve won't eat it because he's a vegetarian. Julie won't eat Steve's "perfect pizza" because she doesn't like mushrooms. What they like and dislike is influenced by emotions, which are not scientifically quantifiable. I'm not, in this sense, maligning psychology any more than I malign chefs. I pay good money on a regular basis to the Pumphouse Brewery because they make the best pizza I've ever had. I place a high value on their art.

I bet you haven't taken a single psychology course.

That is correct. Even entry-level psychology texts cost hundreds of dollars. Although I do have some rudimentary curiosity, my negative experiences with shrinks outweighs that curiosity to the point where I'm not willing to pay that kind of money, let alone the thousands it would cost for a formal university course.

All you've done Bleys is take what I say, find things to question, but you haven't said anything that proves me otherwise.

I try to question everything; Questioning is the cornerstone of scientific thinking. I'm not a scientist myself, but I place a hig value on science itself. As for proof...well, neither position is inherently provable. That's what makes this conversation edifying instead of just short, with a clear winner and loser. As I've said, I consider every participant in this conversation a winner because we've thought about things in detail that otherwise we would have taken for granted.

Everyone else who supported Bleys just wound up saying the same thing, they gave examples of bad psychiatrists. Claiming that their unmoral actions and corrupt diagnosis, their inability to look deeper in their patients, this why psychology isn't a science.

The people I went to as a child aren't bad psychologists; in fact, the general consensus is that they're very skilled. They were just trying to pound a round peg into a square hole.

Now if you want the historical facts about how psychology became a SCIENCE, I am more than glad to do so. But it's lengthy, and I don't know if anything will change in regards to your opinion. I want to know why you think psychology is not a science/ I asked you before, explain yourself.

I've sort of covered why I don't think it's a science -- it doesn't fit in with the Big Three. Actually, I would be interested in the historical facts about how psychology came to be considered a science, even if it's just links. I enjoy reading about things like that. I even read about quantum physics, and I think quantum physics is a complete load of hogwash.

Big kudoz to docta fizz, for putting everything out on the table. But you are right, it's pointless to argue/debate if no one is going to believe you. Or take a look at someone else's point of view.

Pointless to argue/debate, yes, but I wouldn't consider this an argument or debate, but rather a simple (and interesting) conversation.

Get this I NEVER GAVE UP ON MY OPINION.

Never do! Invictus applies here as well. You are the master of your fate, you are the Captain of your soul. Don't ever let anyone tell you what to think. Not even me. (Well, maybe me. I'm pretty awesome after all)

[jenovajunkie]

Ok, psychology basically mapped the brain through cause and effect/correlation. That should be considered biology, rather it is. Chemistry is how the drugs are made, and biology(why they use certain elements).
The historical roots of psych provides information how it has developed into a science. I don't have any links as I am not a psychology major. That is why I didn't want to debate against you anymore Bleys. Have you even researched anything I've said?
But I did start this so I need to finish it. And I really do want to discuss why psych is a science. It's a subject many others take too lightly, and presume to know everything about.
Now back to your big three and how psych is none of them, you are most certainly not correct. And you said that behaviour is non-measurable, well there you go again, most definitely wrong. What happens when you get mad, depressed or sad? What about when you take narcotics?
Each emotion you feel, each stimulis to be exact, manifest or is deployed from your brain. And it happens through millions of nerve endings or cells(called Neurons) that form synapses. This creates a message, telling you what to do, say or feel.[*]But you being the resident scientist already knew that, I bet.
So how does this fit into my argument? Well, through this discovery and the discoveries of new areas in the brain, they can figure out how better to regulate the emotion, help the patient lead a more effecient life. How though Dr. Junkie? Well my fellow colleagues, by exploring deeper into the matter, what types of chemicals are released and causes the brain to send those messages. And what drugs can do for it(the chemical that can cause the opposite synapses).
I probably didn't explain that well or thorough enough, and my wording isn't great. But if needed I will check in from time to time, and answer anymore problems that arise about psychology being a science.
There is more too, like the link between psychology and genetics, biology, chemicals and what they cause(chemistry), development of the brain through early childhood and the all mighty sensory organs and how they play a role in psychology.
So Bleys, psych 是很大 (is very big). And I have a feeling you'll argue this is a neurological explaination, but it really isn't, after all though neurology is psychologies child. I can address other issues you have in more detail later, as really, there is way too much.
Hit me with more, I enjoy this. Plus it's a break from math.

(SPOILER)I'm really really hot.

[blackmage_nuke]

I feel Psychology is like Astrology. It takes things that something that IS science and then attaches cause and effect situations that may or may not happen to be right by chance.

That said I also think it's possible alot of people (maybe me) dont want psychology to be legitamate as they dont like to feel theyre predictable.

[Citizen Bleys]

That said I also think it's possible alot of people (maybe me) dont want psychology to be legitamate as they dont like to feel theyre predictable.

Almost anything is statistically predictable, but those predictions are not and will never be 100% accurate. Free will exists, and it always will.

Ok, psychology basically mapped the brain through cause and effect/correlation. That should be considered biology, rather it is.

Agreed; that is firmly in the province of biology.

What happens when you get mad, depressed or sad?

Although some may mope, lash out, or weep, I for one fight back. I am in control of my emotions. They are not in control of me.

What about when you take narcotics?

Usually, I provide Lynx with ammo to annoy me with. Go ahead someone, post Barret's Privateers *sigh*

Each emotion you feel, each stimulis to be exact, manifest or is deployed from your brain. And it happens through millions of nerve endings or cells(called Neurons) that form synapses. This creates a message, telling you what to do, say or feel.

That sounds dangerously like determinism. I have free will. Emotions may send a message, but we as beings possessed of free will may elect not to act upon said message, especially when it is destructive (as is generally the case with anger, hatred, or depression)

[*]But you being the resident scientist already knew that, I bet.

I'm no scientist, I disclaimed that in my last post. I am, however, a supporter of science and very much a wanna-be.

So how does this fit into my argument? Well, through this discovery and the discoveries of new areas in the brain, they can figure out how better to regulate the emotion, help the patient lead a more effecient life. How though Dr. Junkie? Well my fellow colleagues, by exploring deeper into the matter, what types of chemicals are released and causes the brain to send those messages. And what drugs can do for it(the chemical that can cause the opposite synapses).
I probably didn't explain that well or thorough enough, and my wording isn't great. But if needed I will check in from time to time, and answer anymore problems that arise about psychology being a science.

That sounds like psychiatry, which, being so closely derived from chemistry, is unquestionably a science, albeit one somewhat diluted.

(no longer responding to quotes from this point on)
There is one matter I hadn't thought to mention ere now which divorces psychology from science: subterfuge. The sciences are all closely derived from mathematics, and mathematics can't lie. Psychologists, conversely, are routinely deceptive--and should be, at times. There are cases when it's called for. Perhaps the shrinks I saw were in fact trying to lead me to my own moment of apotheosis; perhaps they wanted me to rage against them to the point where I had to prove them wrong and was thereby sufficiently motivated to solve my own problems. Is that not preferable to a band-aid? Teach a man to fish and all that jazz.

The scientific approach to problem solving is as straightforward as possible. Medicine, for example, is a science (a mixture of all 3 of the Big Three) whereby if you come in with an illness, they give you some form of anodyne and send you on your way. The next time you get the same illness, you have to come back to the doctor. The majority of psychological issues are such that the patient can be taught to treat themselves. You have anger issues? The best solution is to teach you to channel that anger into productive output. Once someone has beaten an anger issue once, they are never as vulnerable to it again. That is the value of an artistic approach. You don't have to acquire a phD in order to consistently overcome a psychological disorder once you've found the answer. There is nothing a person remembers so well as that which they themselves have discovered. Subterfuge may sound malevolent, but in many psychological cases, it is the right answer. It's not the scientific one, but it's the right one. The problem is, with a nonscientific approach, it's not always right.

[jenovajunkie]

Bley's, I understand where you're coming from. But I don't think you are getting the point. The topic of this thread was "Psychology anyone"? As I proceeded with the question, is psychology is a science. Then the discussion of it started.
A while later I defined the noun science, and explained how psychology fits into this description. I agree my explanation was a bit shaky. But I then later re-explained how psychology was a part of this definition.
You later claimed how psychology was not part of the big three. Then I proved otherwise. And then you said that what I'm explaining is psychiatry. And I don't know the difference was. So I researched a bit to find out the differences in the two professions are few.
But now we are steering away from my question. And the majority of the responses were about bad clinicians, and how those actions aren't a science. Let us recall what I asked: Is psychology a science. Note I didn't say anything about the practise of psychology.
Now most of your responses Bley's, contained there is no math involved in psychology. And I was hoping you would have learned enough and did some research about psych to retract your statement. But you haven't and I'm here to break the news: There is. Psychology does in fact deal with stats.
The fact is that psychology, historically, wasn't able to achieve the mathematical precision of Newtonian physics. It was still defining itself . But later in the 1800's psychology defined itself with the discoveries about the brain and the nervous systems.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution changed psychology as a whole. It took psychology which was mostly behavioristic, and buttsmurfed it good. That's when psychology became a science. Biology and Chemistry now overwhelms psychology.
For the record, Psychology gave birth to Psychiatry. And many other things. And you can measure behaviour, did you think the brain is just there to look cool?
Like you said this isn't a debate, I think it as a teaching and learning experience. I hope now you can see why it is science. It's fact.


And if I came off as rude, or a dick. I'm not, nor was trying to. If you need more convincing, or things to research on, msg me. This wasn't as long as your post but I think it gets the point across.