is psychology a science?
 

my self and Cynthetiq started this debate in another thread but it was not what the threat was intended for so i started another one.

what do you guys think psychology is it a science?

for a quick reference see this THREAD

Oh man is it ever. Psychologists use the scientific method in their studies, and use sophisticated statistical procedures to make inferences from the results of these studies. As for the claim that different replications of the same study will have different results, you would expect this to happen in any realm of science, due to random chance. A biologist studying mating habits of the fruit fly will have different results in different studies. It's when you take all the findings as a whole that you can understand what is going on more fully. The fundamental assertion of the scientific method is that nothing can be proven. You can only make good inductive inferences. One study alone will not cause a paradigm shift or get any scientist to believe anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Phychology is the science of behavior and thought processes. And it meets the criteria of science.

It uses the scientific method, therefore it is a science.

I am now creeped out that RoboBlaster and I posted the same idea at the same time.

wow, now that's psychology.

It could be (and should be), but it isn't.

It's more like journalism and entertainment in the psychology academia these days.

Ok, nice quote, but why do you think this?

I took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and let me tell you, that test took 600 seemingly unrelated questions, and put together a profile that knew my deepest darkest secrets.

The analytical part of it, has made a believer out of me.

My questions about psychology are in the treatment part.

I don't know that I believe that problems like hypochondria and depression can be solved by discussion.

Of course its science. Scienitific methods and findings but like all science there are different theories that can be challenged.

Your misgivings are understandable. However, research shows that it does work, and research is what science is all about.

That's the misconception promoted by the Freudian tradition -- that psychological treatments are "discussion."

The proven psychological approach to depression and other conditions -- Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is much more than talk therapy and involves an experiential component.

In addition, there are different causes for depression and few if any psychologists would claim that CBT is right for all depression (or all of any other condition). For instance most psychologists acknowledge that Bipolar Disorder is has purely biological etiology and have it treated accordingly by psychiatrists.

Research shows that medicince coupled with verbal psychotherapy has the best outcome. And I wouldn't dismiss psychodynamic approaches either, they can be every bit as effective as CBT, depending on the patient.

Where have you read or heard about this?

I have seen research showing that although medicine and some forms of psychotherapy seem equally effective (the "dodo bird verdict"), combinations of the two do not seem to have significant improvement over one or the other.

The only psychodynamic approach that I know to have proven effects is interpersonal therapy (IPT), and only for a few conditions. I would be interested in reading about studies showing the efficacy of other psychodynamic approaches.

Unfortunately, I am on spring break right now, so I don't have access to the journals. However, it' funny that you mention IPT, as it is my model of choice.

edit: Okay, I found something. Here is an article I found on healthyplace.com, a site dealing with depression. ( http://www.healthyplace.com/Communit...ch_vs_meds.asp ) The article is a bit too long to post here, but what is says is that for long term treatment where relapse and recurrance of symptoms is at stake, both therapies together seems to work out the best. It also examines short term dynammic approaches. You can check out the references in the article. I know this source isn't as good as a peer reviewd journal, but the info seems ligitimate enough, as it cites plenty of good articles.

It's a good model! I'm generally skeptical of psychodynamic methods but IPT takes into account factors that seem to have pretty clear relationships with psychopathology.

Yeah, IPT isn't a true dynamic model as its focus isn't totally on internal conflicts but on interpersonal behaviors of the here and now as well. At the moment, I am waiting on word from grad schools that have faculty specializing in IPT. (fingers crossed)

Yeah, you're right about combined therapy for chronic depression. (Which, for the non-psych people out there, accounts for about 20% of depression.)

Journal of Clinical Psychology Vol 59(8) (Aug 2003): 893-905:

As for psychodynamic therapy, you may want to check out this article: http://urban.hunter.cuny.edu/~klevy/...vy,%202003.pdf

Yes.

First, let me state what I'm comparing it against.

Hard Sciences - Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Georgraphy, Geology, Mathematics

The rest... fall under science, because they employ the scientific method.

My opinion is that psychology does not fall into the same realm as the above hard sciences, because follow the scientific method, you should get same results. Those that say randomness and chance coming into play, yes, but the purpose of scientific method is to exclude all variables but one allowing one to make an observation and compare it against a control subject. The human mind and condition cannot be eliminated and so randomness and other factors can come into play.

The human mind and condition aren't supposed to be eliminated. They are the variables that are being studied.

sorry ALL the variables of the human mind and condition is what I am referring to.

The point of scientific method is to reduce the variables so that you can have a control group and a study group, within the study group ALL variables are to be eliminated save for the one variable you are hypothesizing is responsible for the experimented result.

Otherwise it's not scientific method but just a "if I do this.. what happens?" which is in essences just simple cause and effect, but it does not prove the actual empirical reasons with empirical evidence.

Like the joke about cutting off the frogs legs and yelling jump each time you cut off a leg. After cutting off 4 legs, and the frog doesn't move, saying the frog is deaf does not mean it is true.

You have a good point, but psychology does create operational definitions of its variables so that it is clear from the start just what is being measured. If a psychologist were to try to publish an article where they did something just to see what happened, he or she would be laughed at.

Its against both the ethics and APA guidelines to do an experiment just to see what happens. you have to have a clear understand of what you think will happen and why you are doing the experiment. Failing to do so will discredit your research and your reputation. It will also get you in trouble with the apa and the people who gave you your grant money.

as for variables, to mix this chemical to make that chemical has very few variable. Take something as complex as human behavior and you get far more variables than just mixing 2 chemicals. Reducing all the variable takes time and a succession of studies. Each study takes it one step closer to getting the “right” answer. Take pav’s dog that was amazing study that reduced all variables. That got stim, response, conditioned response…etc then skinner came along with his rat boxes and got more complex. punishment and rewards and its pros and cons. Who is next?

I have yet to see a test like that where it doesn't boil down to asking "do you have a penis?", then at the end saying "we have determined you are male!"

While there exists Experimental Mathematics, a surprising amount of mathematics is as unrelated to the scientific method as eating dinner.

That's true for the easy sciences.

My answer:
Psychology is a science, but a hard one.
Astronomy is another hard science, for other reasons.

Experimantal Mathematics is the easiest science we have found, followed by Physics.

Just because psychology is studying something that is difficult to study, doesn't mean it isn't a science.

From the other thread:
False. Quantum Mechanics gives you "if you repeat the experiment like this 1000 times, you will get X events like this, 19 times out of 20". You do exactly the same conditions, and you get different results.

You can't predict exactly how many times the even will happen, all you can predict is the probability.

The same can also be said of most chaotic systems: orbital mechanics cannot predict the orbits of the planets indefinately, climatology can't predict weather with 100% certainty, hell most hardware generates random noise which has to be filtered out. (note: I am not implying that QM's randomness is due to chaos) This is because you cannot actually generate the "same initial conditions".

Astronomy and cosmology are both another example: they cannot generate conditions, but they are still a science.

The easy sciences are the ones we have progressed the furthest in. The hard sciences, we are still taking baby steps. Which makes doing science in the realm of psychology hard and you don't get easy results, but you can still do science.

Science is not the scientific method. Science is not having a simple problem to find an answer for.

Nope. It wishes it were, and it pretends to the trappings of scence and empiricism, but, an the bottom of it, it's really just religion gussied up in modernist clothes.

Shamanism works too, but no one ever asks if that's a science.

I think psychology is an umbrella term used to define way to many seperate areas. Some are scientific. Some are not.
I think most psychology is more of an art than a science.

There is a lot of what passes for psychology that IMO is complete bullshit. There have been many "truths" based on the science of psychology that have turned out to be horrible mistakes that caused untold suffering in those it attempted to treat. Prozac for children? Homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder worthy of commital? Lobotomy as a cure all? All of these things are the result of the science of psychology.

Cynthetiq: I will agree that what you are stating is a goal of the scientific method but if you truly understand science you will know that this is thought to be entirely possible. Internal validity is the extent to which we have confidence that our manipulation caused the changes in the dependent variable. The fun is you never have full confidence because you must acknowledge the chance of making a type one error. This applies to all of science not just psychology. If anyone truly believes that they have eliminated all extraneous variables they are ignoring the foundations of science. Scientists never prove anything because they acknowledge their limitations and the possibility of error. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a hard science. 'Hard science' is just a colloquialism and a misleading one at that. There is nothing hard about science. Science is meant to be questioned and played with. If we try to say science is hard we are not recognizing our limitations. Think of it like this if I gave you a rock and told you to tell me exactly how much it weighed you could pull out a scale and weigh it right there and say it weighs this. I could say your wrong and be confident that you are because my neighbor might have a more precise scale. Still, my neighbors scale isn't as precise as a heavily funded research teams scale and even their scale isnt going to be the most precise one out there come next year. Recognizing that nobody can prove, without a doubt, how much that rock weighs or the best way of measuring it is the first step towards understanding the attitude of a scientist.

no that was a result of medical doctors attempts to cure psycholoical problems with surgical and drug technology. psychology had very little to do with that. as for homosexuality as a disorder well in that time the culture thought it was. it was removed when they discovered that it was indeed a culteral bias. in fact we have traveled so far as sex therapists do councling for fear of anal sex. talk about your reversal of thought.

Until quantum mechanics becomes widely accepted because all the "parts" works, it's not considered within the same realm by scientists. You can see that when they discuss it. It's all considered theoretical.

Keeping that in mind if at the end of the studies they added some sort of theoretical disclaimer or even something along the lines of the dietary and weight loss industry that says, "RESULTS NOT TYPICAL" because IMO since the results aren't duplicated 100% they have be able to cover themselves somehow. When I was going to college in the late 80's the psychology groups were calling psychology a "pseudo-" science.

Keep in mind that most that people hear of psychology comes from the media. Pop Psychology like John Gray's "Men are from Mars..." and sensational journalism really cloud what psychology really is about. And it is most definitely not a religion.

It is a science, but a nascent one.

Akin to physics/chemistry/biology 500 years ago, it has some bits right and a lot of bits a lot wrong.

Body, depth and aging on parchment is all that seperates.

And, if not psychology and its many branches, what other school of science is there that sets out to explain the fundemental function and structure of mind, brain and behaviour?

It's not the acheivements that define something as science, but it's methods and intentions.

My £0.02

--

Oh, thought this'd help:

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

psy·chol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-kl-j)
n. pl. psy·chol·o·gies

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity: the psychology of war.
3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body.

I bet if most people could sit in with me on the countless hours of class time going over reasearch methodology and statistical analysis of data, they would see how much of a science it really is.

Our phsycological selves are so hard to confine into a measureable predictible form simply because of the complexity of our minds. Just because it's difficult to define or measure our psyche doesn't mean that the attempt cannot be called science. All scientific theory started with a vague hypothesis. We just haven't reached a conclusion yet.

Sensationalism will always grab mysteries to flaunt. That shouldn't lesson the value of studying the mind. We just have to be more careful to discern the quacks from the true scientists.

Real psychology with the purpose of uncovering the mysteries of the mind is science. Psychology that is sensationalized isn't.

On my first day in psychology class, the first lesson that my professor taught us was that psychology IS a science. It utilizes the scientific method and experiments i.e. Pavlov's dogs and Skinner's rats.

Well I've got a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. So am I a scientist? Shrugs<p> I think it is because certain behaviors and actions can be proven to occur through a given set of circumstances.<p>I hope I didn't waste about three years of college. My first year was undecided.

we discussed this in Anthropology class one day..... social sciences (ex: Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology... etc.) are considered to be "soft" sciences.

is a chess a sport?

depends entirely from the perspective you coming from, but i'd say of course it is, just a different type of science.

Psychohistory is a science.
Psychology, in a lot of instances seems like guestimation.

Psychology is DEFINATELY a science.