Bah Humbug! Psychology is Philosophy, Not Science!

[Da Blob]

This is something that I find particularly irksome, neither, Psychology or Sociology are Sciences, they are schools of thought, branches of Philosophy - one of the Humanities and not one of the Sciences!

Silly humans, with their silly human pride, in academia have made this arbitrary distinction - labeling these as the "Soft Sciences". There can be no such thing as a 'soft science'. It is either science, or it is not.

Neuroscience is real science - psychology is not, linking the two together, seems like a political correct thing to do - but the motivation to do so is Political and nothing else. Their are so many political activists seeking to legitimize their political opinions by the perversion of the ideals and values of Science. They begin their careers with political agendas, pick up a degree or two in the "soft Sciences" and then go about parading as scientists, when at heart, they are nothing more than typical politicians, playing to their own special interest and special interest groups, quite willing to sacrifice the quest for truth, the foundation of Science, in the process.

 

[Tyria]

How do you define science and where would the scientific method fit into your definition?

I think that psychology might be somewhat science-like in that experiments are done... I'm curious how this might influence your consideration of psychology as a science or not.

 

[Lyra]

Indeed, Tyria-- experimental psychology? Sure, it's infantile compared to what it might be one day and what other sciences are now, but writing it off in its entirety as 'unscientific' seems too gross a distinction.

Not only does experimental psychology attempt to make use of the modern scientific method, it is science in the original Latin meaning of that word: 'Scientia' meant, simply, knowledge.

I agree, though, that much of modern psychology-- experimental psychology included-- is hopelessly ideological and doctrinal. I can't even begin to speak on institutional psychiatry, because I'll vomit blood if I do.

 

[Cognisant]

Da Blob upholding the "For Science!" banner *bowled over*

*has a closer look*

I suspect Da Blob that you're not trying to protect the integrity of the hard sciences, that's just incidental to your true goal, to isolate psychology from objectivity so it can be claimed by the subjective causes of religion and the like. I will not stand by while you plot to turn the very basis of philosophy into yet another pseudoscience, mark my words Blob, I’m on to your little game and I will stop you!

 

[Da Blob]

How do you define science and where would the scientific method fit into your definition?

I think that psychology might be somewhat science-like in that experiments are done... I'm curious how this might influence your consideration of psychology as a science or not.

Ignoring the previous post (more or less )
I was a dedicated scientist, long before I converted to Christianity.
I see Science as a quest for Objective truth and my Christianity as a quest for Subjective truth.

Prior to talking about the scientific method as a tool, I would like to herald the philosphy of reductionism as a tool of science. The application of this philosphy has yielded layer after layer of structures in the Objective universe, confirming the philosophy that complexity is derived from simpler components. These components are generic units , that have no individuality and are interchangible.

I have had several courses in Research Methodlogy and I have discivered that many people who proclaim the glories of the scientific method simply have no idea of what they are speaking about. The whole method is absolutely dependent upon the manipulation of a single isolated variable in a valid, replicable and verifiable experiment.

describing psychology as science-like or scientific is appropriate, but it is not science, if only because there are no psychological units that are interchangible from one mind to another. there are no little components that make up the equivalent of a Periodic Table of thought or a set of genes that comprise the chromosomes of behavior.

The problem with psychology is that as a school of thought, it was premature. People started to develop the academia of psychology long before the approriate tools existed that could directly observe the brain and the activty of the brain that is associated with specific actions and behaviors...

It was in fact mere specualtion, with a veneer of respectibility provided by statistical analysis of patterns, but not analysis of scientific units of structure...

 

[Dormouse]

Somehow, the moment I saw the title of this thread I knew Da Blob had penned it... I think the 'Bah Humbug!' was what gave it away.

I find psychology, as a 'science', provides much more in the way of statistics and pure ideas than it does in verified theories. It often points out the oddities of the psyche, asks the questions that neurology later answers. It is at least a tool of science, if you don't consider it a pure discipline.

And you must admit there is some attempt at scientific method: Unfortunately, there are just too many variables in peoples lives to provide unsullied information. Short of raising test subjects in caves, there is little we can do to discern exactly which aspects of their routines cause certain behaviours or patterns of thought.

 

[wadlez]

Yeah your definately wrong da blob. Originally when psychology was under the psychoanalytical school of thought you could say that it was more philosophy than science but these days you cant say anything in psychology unless its been proven by many scientific experiments. The scientific method is followed very stringently and if you stray from it even slightly you might as well of not done the experiment at all (no one will accept your findings).
Psychology has gone from broadly explaining all behaviour in the psychoanalytic days with no proof, to explaining only the smallest observable behaviours which you back up with scientific evidence, building up from these observations and doing even more experiments to prove that.
To study psychology you have to learn statistics and research methods, which makes up half of what you learn.
I have to agree with oresama's observation here as many religious people do not like psychology, especially when we explain why people believe in god or talk in terms of evolutionary psychology.

Do you believe in evolution da blob?

 

[Da Blob]

I have a Bachelor's in Psychology and a Master's in Human Relations, My "capstone" course wa the "History of Psychology" and while I was at the Univeristy of Chicago, I was blessed to be able to take a Philosophy of Psychology course , taught by Bill Wimsatt.

So..., this time I really know of that of which I speak, having seen, from the inside, all the dirty little details that are hidden from public view...

 

[Tyria]

Ignoring the previous post (more or less )
I was a dedicated scientist, long before I converted to Christianity.
I see Science as a quest for Objective truth and my Christianity as a quest for Subjective truth.

Do you still consider yourself a scientist, and do you still do experiments? I was curious since you mentioned being a scientist in the past. Could you also provide a definition for science? I didn't see one in your first reply.

Prior to talking about the scientific method as a tool, I would like to herald the philosphy of reductionism as a tool of science. The application of this philosphy has yielded layer after layer of structures in the Objective universe, confirming the philosophy that complexity is derived from simpler components. These components are generic units , that have no individuality and are interchangible.

I agree that reductionism has its place in science, but I disagree that the subunits of a reduced system have no individuality and are interchangeable. A combination of subunits can produce emergent properties which differ depending on the number and combination of those subunits. One example that comes to mind would be the way that a protein binds to a receptor based on its structure. Depending on the protein (and the receptor for that matter), the number and combination of chemical entities can have a dramatic effect on binding and other properties.

I have had several courses in Research Methodlogy and I have discivered that many people who proclaim the glories of the scientific method simply have no idea of what they are speaking about. The whole method is absolutely dependent upon the manipulation of a single isolated variable in a valid, replicable and verifiable experiment.

Controlling complex systems is very difficult; I would agree with your example in terms of a biological system. I harbor suspicions that some biological properties are difficult to analyze if they happen outside of an integrated biological system. One example could be neuronal remodeling in adolescant brains: outside of a biological system, it would be difficult to explain (and control) everything that happens during that process.

describing psychology as science-like or scientific is appropriate, but it is not science, if only because there are no psychological units that are interchangible from one mind to another. there are no little components that make up the equivalent of a Periodic Table of thought or a set of genes that comprise the chromosomes of behavior.

To be fair, you are comparing a natural science and a social science. Some of what psychology studies (ex. personality) does not exist in the sense of discrete units like the periodic table or chromosomes. Differences are to be expected given the material to be studied and examined.

The problem with psychology is that as a school of thought, it was premature. People started to develop the academia of psychology long before the approriate tools existed that could directly observe the brain and the activty of the brain that is associated with specific actions and behaviors...

It was in fact mere specualtion, with a veneer of respectibility provided by statistical analysis of patterns, but not analysis of scientific units of structure...

I think much of the experimental science going on now is to give a more 'natural' foundation for the ideas of a social science. Science is still a process though. I would imagine that it would be difficult to construct meaning for things that may not have a discrete basis on reduced subunits.

I have a Bachelor's in Psychology and a Master's in Human Relations, My "capstone" course wa the "History of Psychology" and while I was at the Univeristy of Chicago, I was blessed to be able to take a Philosophy of Psychology course , taught by Bill Wimsatt.

...of which I speak, having seen, from the inside, all the dirty little details that are hidden from public view...

What were your experiences? I would love to hear about them.

 

[Polaris]

If Blob means scientific method as in "proving" or establishing a "fact", until a different fact is proven, that is being scientific enough to not adhere like a fanatic to their belief, but to be objective enough to admit that even science can be subjective, then I agree. Those who profess that science is the only "truth" are as naive as the people they proclaim to carry the same naivete.

Edit: To clarify, this is not a response to Tyria's post, it just happened to pop in before mine.

 

[wadlez]

I have a Bachelor's in Psychology and a Master's in Human Relations, My "capstone" course wa the "History of Psychology" and while I was at the Univeristy of Chicago, I was blessed to be able to take a Philosophy of Psychology course , taught by Bill Wimsatt.

So..., this time I really know of that of which I speak, having seen, from the inside, all the dirty little details that are hidden from public view...

I have almost finished my psych degree, yet to see any details that are hidden from public view. I seriously doubt there are any, we're not a world wide group of conspirators.
INTP's dont take people on there word despite the credentials they claim to have, if you can disprove something you'll have to do it, cant pull the authority angle on us.

 

[Agent Intellect]

They're all philosophies; PhD means "Doctor of Philosophy", with philosophy meaning love of wisdom and distinguishing itself from other approaches to knowledge via it's focus on critical thinking, the application of logic and reason, and a drive to demystify phenomena - this as opposed to spirituality or mystical explanations.

Philosophers and scientists were at one time indistinguishable. It's only through the application of testing theories and falsification, as opposed to just rigorous logic or accepting things because they are aesthetically pleasing, that has caused science and philosophy to diverge into separate fields.

As pointed out already, science, from the Latin "scientia", means knowledge. Websters defines science as: "Knowledge attained through study or practice" or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world."

A scientific hypothesis is a statement making a prediction about a specific phenomenon that can be tested. The strength of a scientific theory comes from it's sustained, consistent accuracy through the process of falsification and it's ability to make predictions. Psychology is able to make predictions about human behavior, test them (admittedly through purely statistical analysis) and formulate theories about the phenomenon; the strength of neuropsychology is that it can observationally distinguish physical differences causing the behavior.

That being said, psychology does seem to be the most prone to bias by the one doing the testing, the one being tested, and those that seek to benefit from the results. That does not necessarily mean that psychology, in principle, is not a science - although I would be inclined to say it's more philosophical myself, as it's more concerned with subjectivity and a persons experience, even if it aims to discover correlations and trends among peoples subjective experience in the world.

 

[wadlez]

That being said, psychology does seem to be the most prone to bias by the one doing the testing, the one being tested, and those that seek to benefit from the results. That does not necessarily mean that psychology, in principle, is not a science - although I would be inclined to say it's more philosophical myself, as it's more concerned with subjectivity and a persons experience, even if it aims to discover correlations and trends among peoples subjective experience in the world.

Every experiment has a method section where you outline exactly what you did, explain the sample and everything done in the experiment. I dont even read what people think they have found most times, just read the results. I leave nothing to subjectivity and the bias of the experimenter.
Medicine is the field most under fire for posting false results and skewing the data to get more research funding, but this can happen to any field.

Hypothetically: If you were studying computer programs which ran AI on robots and were trying to figure out how they work and trying to figure out the underlying program by looking at the hardware and the observable output of the program, the techniques you would you use would be the same as that psychology use.

 

[boradicus]

Ignoring the previous post (more or less )
I was a dedicated scientist, long before I converted to Christianity.
I see Science as a quest for Objective truth and my Christianity as a quest for Subjective truth.

Prior to talking about the scientific method as a tool, I would like to herald the philosphy of reductionism as a tool of science. The application of this philosphy has yielded layer after layer of structures in the Objective universe, confirming the philosophy that complexity is derived from simpler components. These components are generic units , that have no individuality and are interchangible.

I have had several courses in Research Methodlogy and I have discivered that many people who proclaim the glories of the scientific method simply have no idea of what they are speaking about. The whole method is absolutely dependent upon the manipulation of a single isolated variable in a valid, replicable and verifiable experiment.

describing psychology as science-like or scientific is appropriate, but it is not science, if only because there are no psychological units that are interchangible from one mind to another. there are no little components that make up the equivalent of a Periodic Table of thought or a set of genes that comprise the chromosomes of behavior.

The problem with psychology is that as a school of thought, it was premature. People started to develop the academia of psychology long before the approriate tools existed that could directly observe the brain and the activty of the brain that is associated with specific actions and behaviors...

It was in fact mere specualtion, with a veneer of respectibility provided by statistical analysis of patterns, but not analysis of scientific units of structure...

I would not say it was premature - potentially it was found to be useful - but premature no. Psychology has its origins in philosophy, as do many of the sciences (in as much as the methods enlisted for proofs and the discovery process are concerned), which does not necessarily orient psychology to reconciliation with the tangible data associated with most other sciences. Much of science is deemed useful, and while some discoveries may appear quite arbitrary, the circumstances of their discovery does not withhold them from misappropriation toward politically (in the broad sense of the term) useful ends. Hence, because of the context of the origin of the DSM manuals, efficient measures toward purposes larger-scale than the personal betterment of individuals were adopted in the form of pharmacological solutions to biologically rendered perceptions of inadequate performance quanta. Biological solutions are more easily ascertained (whether or not they are in actuality valid within the framework of problems themselves from the perspective of the individual being treated) and implemented; additionally, they avoid questions of political (once again - the broad sense of the word: meaning the influence of some individual/s over an/other/s) context and enforce the existing orders (relational structures of power/influence) which is convenient to all except the person who's treatment is being prescribed.

England did not want Churchill until they realized that they had to have him. Today, Churchill could only exist by the repudiation of the claim made on his person in the form of the diagnosis of bi-polar disorder and its commonly prescriptive treatment.

 

[Jennywocky]

Bah! Religion is philosophy, not science!




(did I do that right?)