Psychology vs philosophy

[Coolydudey]

I have noticed quite a few threads in the philosophy forum that I would deem fundamentally psychological. Not an overwhelming percentage, but still an important one. Some examples (in these cases, the title is enough to give it away):
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14673
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14625
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14700
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14664
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14659

They are essentially philosophical approaches to psychological problems. I have made some similar threads which I placed in the psychology and neuroscience sub forum, where none garnered too much response. Two questions:
Would my threads better be placed in the philosophy sub-forum?
Perhaps some of the threads from the philosophy forum should be moved to the psychology one?
Just being nit-picky here...

 

[Cognisant]

*sigh*

So many exciting titles, so many boring topics.
If this was actually a thread about Psychology vs Philosophy I could have spent all night here.

 

[kantor1003]

If this was actually a thread about Psychology vs Philosophy I could have spent all night here.

Would it be fair to say that, fundamentally, psychology is philosophy and that it was only in the latter half of the 19th century that psychology first individuated itself from philosophy having the empirical sciences as its role model? The difference would then be, not so much the questions being posed, but the method. Philosophy using human reason/dialectic as it's guide to truth, while psychology makes use of empirical (for instance psychometric and historiometric testing) methods.

 

[Fukyo]

Dude, you're way too preoccupied with getting feedback.

 

[own8ge]

Psychology, philosophy, Science, Physics, Math, Religion, (etc)
I don't think there is a fundamental difference between such literature.
Sure there is a difference in how it is being objectified, but that's just that.

 

[BigApplePi]

Dude, you're way too preoccupied with getting feedback.

Coolydudey. Let's try something different. How would YOU describe the difference between psychology and philosophy? No matter what you answer, we could take off from there.

 

[Da Blob]

Would it be fair to say that, fundamentally, psychology is philosophy and that it was only in the latter half of the 19th century that psychology first individuated itself from philosophy having the empirical sciences as its role model? The difference would then be, not so much the questions being posed, but the method. Philosophy using human reason/dialectic as it's guide to truth, while psychology makes use of empirical (for instance psychometric and historiometric testing) methods.

Actually, it is more than fair, as someone with two degrees in psychology, I would have stated that psychology remains a philosophy, but one that attempts to replace thought with mindless numbers - to no avail.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

psychology remains a philosophy, but one that attempts to replace thought with mindless numbers - to no avail.

You mean you don't get dizzy with excitement every time you see a chi-square or a Cronbach's alpha?

 

[BigApplePi]

You mean you don't get dizzy with excitement every time you see a chi-square or a Cronbach's alpha?

How would I get hold on one of those alpha squares? I could use some excitement tonight.

 

[Da Blob]

Actually I rather enjoy statistics, despite them being Absolutely Useless in the diagnosis and treatment of an individual's mental distress.

I rather like the experience of the Monte Carlo Regression, in particular.

... and one really hasn't lived until one has run a Multivariate Analysis that treated dependent variables as manipulated variables. Hoo Rah!

 

[MichiganJFrog]

How would I get hold on one of those alpha squares?

Officially, you can't get those anymore, but I know a guy.

 

[Duxwing]

Actually I rather enjoy statistics, despite them being Absolutely Useless in the diagnosis and treatment of an individual's mental distress.

I rather like the experience of the Monte Carlo Regression, in particular.

... and one really hasn't lived until one has run a Multivariate Analysis that treated dependent variables as manipulated variables. Hoo Rah!

Thanks for the belly laugh, Blob, you really know how to make math funny.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

@Fukyo

Dude, you're way too preoccupied with getting feedback.

You mean like when he proposes the topic on Tuesday and here it is Thursday and he hasn't shown up to thank us for our responses? Well it's Christmas and what all ... I hope he's alright.

 

[Coolydudey]

@Fukyo

You mean like when he proposes the topic on Tuesday and here it is Thursday and he hasn't shown up to thank us for our responses? Well it's Christmas and what all ... I hope he's alright.

No, it's just that she's noticed a trend of me trying to get feedback, although from my perspective, this thread is more just asking what the distinction is between the sub-forums, suggesting that some threads be moved, and perhaps sparking an interesting discussion about the subject (which has happened).
Anyway, I'm notorious for not realising (or remembering) to say thanks, so thanks.
And don't worry, I'll be fine.

 

[EmergingAlbert]

Anyway, I'm notorious for not realising (or remembering) to say thanks, so thanks.

A little off topic, but I'm exactly the same...I wonder if this is a common INTP characteristic.

 

[snafupants]

Would it be fair to say that, fundamentally, psychology is philosophy and that it was only in the latter half of the 19th century that psychology first individuated itself from philosophy having the empirical sciences as its role model? The difference would then be, not so much the questions being posed, but the method. Philosophy using human reason/dialectic as it's guide to truth, while psychology makes use of empirical (for instance psychometric and historiometric testing) methods.

@kantor1003

The methods between the two systems are, indeed, dissimilar but so are their respective scopes, limitations, and interests; per forthcoming definitions, obviously psychology and philosophy may inform one another, and both benefit from assimilating science's lessons. Psychology aims to adumbrate the interaction between mind and environment (a challenging task!) whereas philosophy, generally, competitively squints at the expansive ambit of explaining ontology and its constituents. I need to define philosophy broadly because it entails semiotics, anthropology, economics, sociology, cliometrics, astronomy, primatology, physics, history, science of all stripes, psychology, linguistics, and myriad cross-contextual domains. Ideally, philosophy would answer the questions of why humans are here and what should be done about it. I generally agree with your timeline though. Wilhelm Wundt is credited with the first psychological lab and researchers like Galton and Spearman (psychometrics), Pavlov (behaviorism) and Freud (psychodynamics) were pivotal figures in shaping today's psychology; John Dewey is another early figure who actually bridged philosophy and psychology in spearheading educational reform. I'm less keen on saying that psychology is more empirical than philosophy. Psychology, it should be said, relies on introspection and self-assessments at times whereas philosophy leans on logical positivism and science, especially within the analytic tradition of Bertrand Russell and company. Also, specifically for my darling Kantor, I will respond to your message before one of us dies.

 

[kantor1003]

@snafupants
I agree with pretty much everything you say here and I appreciate you elucidating me on the history of psychology. You say, however, that philosophy entails disciplines like cliometrics and history. I'm not sure whether I ascent to this or not, so I'd be interested in you giving a more in-depth take on how you picture this relationship. I think, and I'm sure you'll let me know if you disagree with me on this, one must begin from the observation that philosophy is what, in the initial establishment of almost any discipline, determines it's scope; what questions it should be asking and how it should go about answering them. Indeed, it seems to be the case that without having a first philosophy, we can't even have such a thing as natural science. Even the very notion of natural science must necessarily have behind it an accompanied metaphysics even though it isn't necessarily engaged with directly by it's practitioners (in fact, as practitioners, engaging directly with the underlying metaphysics would be outside the scope of their discipline).

Oh, and I'm still alive and well and I got your PM! I will respond, but I can't guarantee that it will arrive before one of us dies even though I'm pretty sure I'm going to make it through the next few weeks.

 

[EmergingAlbert]

Psychology, it should be said, relies on introspection and self-assessments at times whereas philosophy leans on logical positivism and science, especially within the analytic tradition of Bertrand Russell and company.

I think it's quite the opposite. Philosophy relies on introspection and self-assessments, while psychology relies on science and logical positivism.