Is psychology really a science

[Imza]

Hey everyone, I'm new the forum and a psychology student so I thought I would chime into this discussion.

In comparison, psychology is not so subject to mathematical formulating and we can only make generalizations which always end up with exceptions. So, we don't call them "laws." Science has to do with the field's limitations and that does not preclude the subject from being science.

I'm always confused by when people such claims, especially considering there is an abundance of psychology research that can be considered in a true scientific sense, "law" of nature. Few examples that jump to mind is "reinforcement theory", "behavioral momentum" and "Matching law" but there are many more. I'm not sure why psychology is consistently being asked to defend itself as a science or why people do not believe it makes the same level of prediction as other sciences. To me it seems like anyone who has been reading up on and studying scientific psychology knows there have been incredible advances in the science and it is much richer and deeper than what the public perception seems to be.

 

What can make a "science" from not being a science is rationalizing. For example, social science data---including that of psychologists---is gathered in scientific ways but it is interpreted by social theorists in ways that ensure that the over-all picture is the very least offensive to the mythology of the old religions and to other "politically incorrect" subjects.

I'm really confused by this statement, could you clarify on what you mean? The experiments I read about and conduct are not based on social theories but based on previous experimental research, much of it done with non-human animals. I'm not sure what you mean by least offensive to mythology or old religion?

I suppose it could be in that it is body of related neurological phenomenon.

 

We know quite a few mental disorders. Did you know that not one is worked out as to exactly what is causing the disorder? I suppose a few reading this may believe I am being harsh. After all, the brain is complex. Yet have you ever asked for a definitive test that proved these the exact disorder being labeled? You know that you can't get one right? Not one.... In fact if you go to different psychologists and list the same list of troubles you will get different diagnosis. That's right, different OPINIONS of what is wrong with you. Sound Like a well grounded science to you?

 

Isn't this a bit unfair considering the nature psychological disorders don't lend themselves to "definitive" tests? It's not as easy as giving taking blood or other samples from a patient. Yes psychological disorders are complex and that's why it requires complex science to understand it, it's not as easy as simplifying it into definitive disorders when the state of nature is not that simple. That aside, it seems like your focusing on DSM diagnosis, which I will grant is not nearly as scientific as it should be, partly due to lingering influence of Freudian theories. However, if your talking about more general psychological assessments and tests, there is very strong scientific research to back up these assessments tools. Using anecdotal evidence of how different psychologists would give different diagnosis does not, in my opinion, prove or speak for the field as a whole. I myself have had clients who have had clearly been misdiagnosed but out of negligence of the clinician, not the failing of the scientifically based instruments or procedures.

 

The list of Mental Disorders given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is increased ever year. There has never been a disorder removed for any reason and the book is getting quite thick. The process of adding the disorders is that experienced psychologists observe people and try to describe distinct hehavior that may be due to a mental disorder. The observation is then checked in the DSM to see if it is already covered by existing lables. If not, a clear description of the disorder is then recited at an annual meeting where the disorder is voted upon as to weather it should be added to the manual. There is never a clear chemical analysis or any other definitive test to determine the eligibility of the disorder (hence why no clear test exist).

Why are you using the DSM as a standard for judging the scientific basis for psychology? Unfortunately, the DSM has remained largely based on opinion and not on scientific data (which exists), despite the community of scientists trying to change the DSM. This is a problem for sure and it's being addressed, just see the uproar over the DSM 5, but it again doesn't speak to the scientific research in psychology. If one wants to claim scientific psychology is not scientific, I think the proper thing to do is to pick the strong research or studies in psychology and in detail describe why it's not scientific.

We are now starting to come to 1900AD. The idea that mental disorders were influenced by a chemical basis was not introduced until after would war 2. The US and many other nations were investing quite-a-bit into warfare. Included in this was the means to attack or disable large populations at a time like entire cities and their populations. One promising subject were drugs. LSD for example was created with the idea that it could be dropped into a water works before a military invasion to pacify it's populace. As a side note, the word "high" refers to a state of mental euphoria often induced by drugs but not always. It came from the then US Air Force who had been recently formed in the time of WW2 and had large numbers of personnel being added to their ranks. Would be pilots would do test flights and it was noticed that if you went too high, a condition called "anoxia" would set in that caused the pilot to act erratically due to a lack of oxygen to the brain. "Anoxia" also causes euphoria thus "high" referred to this condition as a slang term. These same recruits were asked to assist in the drug testing of drugs like LSD and much of what provided the base compounds of modern behavioral drugs. "High" then became adopted by the general populace. As for the drugs, with so much money invested into research, drug induced behavioral modification and the effects of chemicals on people was now documented and the effects of chemicals on human behavior became the basis of the modern pharmaceutical trend.

I'm not sure how comprehensive of a history you were trying to provide for psychology but the above doesn't even cover 1% of what's happened in psychology. The implication that chemicals can be involved in mental disorders was a conceptual leap forward but there were far greater advances in the field towards scientific psychology. Even in terms of looking at neurobehavioral evidence from a biological perspective, we know that chemicals are involved in every human behavior so it's pretty useless statement with current research. However, both psychological and biological research fields have been developing more complex models of bio-chemical processes that underly psychological and behavioral processes. I think Robert Sapolsky is a very good example of this type of research.

As for other developments in the field, I would suggest at starting off by covering B.F. Skinner who pretty much set the stage and argument for how psychology can be a science to modern day work in behavior analysis, cognitive science, and psychophysics as good places to start if your interested in learning about the scientific developments in the field. Also, since the focus seems to be more on mental illness rather than scientific psychology in general, I would suggest reading up on developmental psychopathology research which is a very well solid area of scientific research on psychopathology (mental illness).

And as another side fact: Psychiatric care is the only proclaimed help profession that reserves the right to overturn patient rights and lock you up against your will.

Psychologists do that too and even though I'm not sure what your intention is in bringing this up, I assume it's a criticism of a sort. I would again like to point out that the situation is different in psychological care, especially in cases where clients are suicidal or at risk for harm towards others among other situations that require "overturning patient rights". Anyways, I see this as a topic of bio/medical ethics rather than a failing of psychiatry/psychology.

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Samsa]

Hey everyone, I'm new the forum and a psychology student so I thought I would chime into this discussion. I'm always confused by when people such claims, especially considering there is an abundance of psychology research that can be considered in a true scientific sense, "law" of nature. Few examples that jump to mind is "reinforcement theory", "behavioral momentum" and "Matching law" but there are many more. I'm not sure why psychology is consistently being asked to defend itself as a science or why people do not believe it makes the same level of prediction as other sciences. To me it seems like anyone who has been reading up on and studying scientific psychology knows there have been incredible advances in the science and it is much richer and deeper than what the public perception seems to be.

 

Hey Imza, as I mentioned to you in an earlier discussion over at Ratskep, I think the problem here is just basic ignorance of what psychology is. People aren't interested in psychology because they think it's all wibbly discussions of the "unconscious" and wanting to have sex with your mother, and so they don't bother to read about the mathematical laws that underpin our thoughts and behavior.

 

Isn't this a bit unfair considering the nature psychological disorders don't lend themselves to "definitive" tests? It's not as easy as giving taking blood or other samples from a patient. Yes psychological disorders are complex and that's why it requires complex science to understand it, it's not as easy as simplifying it into definitive disorders when the state of nature is not that simple. That aside, it seems like your focusing on DSM diagnosis, which I will grant is not nearly as scientific as it should be, partly due to lingering influence of Freudian theories. However, if your talking about more general psychological assessments and tests, there is very strong scientific research to back up these assessments tools. Using anecdotal evidence of how different psychologists would give different diagnosis does not, in my opinion, prove or speak for the field as a whole. I myself have had clients who have had clearly been misdiagnosed but out of negligence of the clinician, not the failing of the scientifically based instruments or procedures.

 

...

Why are you using the DSM as a standard for judging the scientific basis for psychology? Unfortunately, the DSM has remained largely based on opinion and not on scientific data (which exists), despite the community of scientists trying to change the DSM. This is a problem for sure and it's being addressed, just see the uproar over the DSM 5, but it again doesn't speak to the scientific research in psychology. If one wants to claim scientific psychology is not scientific, I think the proper thing to do is to pick the strong research or studies in psychology and in detail describe why it's not scientific.

Whilst I agree with your confusion over why someone would appeal to the DSM to question the scientific validity of psychology, I think you're being a bit unfair to the DSM. The recent versions are becomingly increasingly based on scientific evidence, and the criteria listed within it have been refined according to the best available evidence. The problem, however, is that people tend to view psychological disorders as being biologically-based, so when people say, "No cause have ever been found for a single mental disorder", what they mean is that no concrete spot in the brain has been identified as the cause of OCD or whatever. The obvious flaw in this is that causes of many psychological disorders have been discovered and found, for example, some forms of phobia, PTSD, depression etc. The confusing part for some people to grasp is that there can be multiple causes to the same problem, and there can be different behaviors which are a manifestation of the same problem.

But, as you say, discussing clinical psychology is irrelevant in a discussion on the state of psychology as a science.

Psychologists do that too and even though I'm not sure what your intention is in bringing this up, I assume it's a criticism of a sort. I would again like to point out that the situation is different in psychological care, especially in cases where clients are suicidal or at risk for harm towards others among other situations that require "overturning patient rights". Anyways, I see this as a topic of bio/medical ethics rather than a failing of psychiatry/psychology.

 

His claim is also incorrect. Doctors routinely lock people up and put them in isolation when they contract contagious diseases to protect the life of the individual and society as a whole, and parents can be forced to hand over their children in order to receive life saving surgery or medical intervention when they refuse it provide it.

 

As you correctly point out though, even if it were true that psychology was the only health profession to do this, so what? It's a political/legal issue, and only related to clinical psychology, so it's confusing as to how it all relates to the science of psychology.

[John]

Precise definitions of what constitutes a "science" may vary over time or with who you ask, but I tend to go with the categorization of various disciplines into three broad fields (note that there is some overlap in some subdisciplines): the formal sciences (e.g. mathematics, theoretical computer science), the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology---sometimes further broken down into the physical and life sciences), and the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology). Each category has its own methods of arriving at conclusions about the world, despite limitations inherent in each. In general, psychologists, like other scientists, design and perform controlled experiments to test hypotheses and develop theories. While certain aspects of psychology may be open to interpretation, this in no way diminishes its status as a science as valid as any other. Indeed, certain aspects of any science may be open to interpretation.

 

I wonder if perhaps some people recoil from the notion that something as personal as the human mind can be systematically studied, and try to diminish the legitimacy of psychological research as a result.

 

In any case, tl;dr "yes, psychology is a science."

[Mr.Samsa]

Precise definitions of what constitutes a "science" may vary over time or with who you ask, but I tend to go with the categorization of various disciplines into three broad fields (note that there is some overlap in some subdisciplines): the formal sciences (e.g. mathematics, theoretical computer science), the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology---sometimes further broken down into the physical and life sciences), and the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology). Each category has its own methods of arriving at conclusions about the world, despite limitations inherent in each. In general, psychologists, like other scientists, design and perform controlled experiments to test hypotheses and develop theories. While certain aspects of psychology may be open to interpretation, this in no way diminishes its status as a science as valid as any other. Indeed, certain aspects of any science may be open to interpretation.

 

I wonder if perhaps some people recoil from the notion that something as personal as the human mind can be systematically studied, and try to diminish the legitimacy of psychological research as a result.

 

In any case, tl;dr "yes, psychology is a science."

 

I agree with most of this, except with the classification of psychology as a social science. Social science, as suggested by the name, studies society, the people within that society, and the relationships between them. This of course only covers a subset of psychological fields, since a lot of psychology is unconcerned with society or humans. Psychology, broadly understood, is the study of behavior and it is a natural science in this sense, as it uses experimental methods to objectively study and understand the phenomena in question, and generates universal mathematical laws which hold true across all objects that behave. Some areas within psychology can be more accurately understood as social sciences, such as social psychology or personality psychology, but I think applying the label to the field as a whole simply perpetuates the myth that psychology is about humans, or even mostly interested in humans.

[John]

Well, as I mentioned, there is overlap. I made the distinction into three (or four) separate categories more to illustrate that even if psychology is viewed simply as the study of some abstract and subjective notion of the mind (which it isn't, of course, but if it is viewed that way), it's still a field of science. I suppose I could have worded it better, and perhaps even my own view of the field is rather elementary. In any case, thanks for the clarification.

Edited November 15, 2011 by John

[Imza]

[/color][/size][/color]

 

Hey Imza, as I mentioned to you in an earlier discussion over at Ratskep, I think the problem here is just basic ignorance of what psychology is. People aren't interested in psychology because they think it's all wibbly discussions of the "unconscious" and wanting to have sex with your mother, and so they don't bother to read about the mathematical laws that underpin our thoughts and behavior.

 

[/size][/color][/font]

I had a feeling you would around here on this forum as well Mr. Samsa I will reply to your thread there too, I was just going through hell week portion of my semester and my neurons are still trying to recover. I'm actually on a representative on New York Science Academy and I'm trying to get some scholars within psychology to speak about this very topic to the larger scientific community. I think we need people in other science fields first to understand psychology before we can hope to change the perception of the general public.

Whilst I agree with your confusion over why someone would appeal to the DSM to question the scientific validity of psychology, I think you're being a bit unfair to the DSM. The recent versions are becomingly increasingly based on scientific evidence, and the criteria listed within it have been refined according to the best available evidence. The problem, however, is that people tend to view psychological disorders as being biologically-based, so when people say, "No cause have ever been found for a single mental disorder", what they mean is that no concrete spot in the brain has been identified as the cause of OCD or whatever. The obvious flaw in this is that causes of many psychological disorders have been discovered and found, for example, some forms of phobia, PTSD, depression etc. The confusing part for some people to grasp is that there can be multiple causes to the same problem, and there can be different behaviors which are a manifestation of the same problem.

 

I'll admit I was exaggerating a bit but I would still say a large portion of the DSM is not based on best available data. I will agree however that it has made considerable improvements over the years but it remains to be seen with DSM 5 if the trend will continue. We were actually just discussing in my class how the proposed creation of some of new disorders is not supported by the data while others such as selective mutism is still up in the air regarding it's place within childhood anxiety disorders. Moreover, being a die-hard behaviorist that I am, I would argue that the implicit assumption that disorders are "within the person" is not one that is scientifically accurate and leads to an oversimplified version of conditions that lack scientific sophistication that would be found in say a developmental psychopathology book chapter on the same disorders. I obviously agree with you that people do have a misunderstanding of psychological disorders being biologically based but again I think that is partly the DSM's fault in the way it describes a disorder. To say someone has "OCD" implies it's a concrete spot on the brain or some type of stable condition even though you and I know that's not true. This is partly necessary for research and other purposes but I think it inaccurately portrays the disorder from a scientific standpoint.

 

 

 

[Mr.Samsa]

I had a feeling you would around here on this forum as well Mr. Samsa I will reply to your thread there too, I was just going through hell week portion of my semester and my neurons are still trying to recover. I'm actually on a representative on New York Science Academy and I'm trying to get some scholars within psychology to speak about this very topic to the larger scientific community. I think we need people in other science fields first to understand psychology before we can hope to change the perception of the general public.

 

Sorry to hear about your hellish week, but hearing some scholars speak on this issue would certainly be pretty interesting. If you did manage to set up some kind of conference, or organise some correspondence, I think you should record it and present it online so it's accessible to the public. It would be a great resource, I imagine.

I'll admit I was exaggerating a bit but I would still say a large portion of the DSM is not based on best available data. I will agree however that it has made considerable improvements over the years but it remains to be seen with DSM 5 if the trend will continue. We were actually just discussing in my class how the proposed creation of some of new disorders is not supported by the data while others such as selective mutism is still up in the air regarding it's place within childhood anxiety disorders. Moreover, being a die-hard behaviorist that I am, I would argue that the implicit assumption that disorders are "within the person" is not one that is scientifically accurate and leads to an oversimplified version of conditions that lack scientific sophistication that would be found in say a developmental psychopathology book chapter on the same disorders. I obviously agree with you that people do have a misunderstanding of psychological disorders being biologically based but again I think that is partly the DSM's fault in the way it describes a disorder. To say someone has "OCD" implies it's a concrete spot on the brain or some type of stable condition even though you and I know that's not true. This is partly necessary for research and other purposes but I think it inaccurately portrays the disorder from a scientific standpoint.

 

Fair point, there are some difficulties with the evidence behind some categories, but I would argue that it is mostly based on evidence - even if it is imperfect. As for how the DSM talks about disorders, I guess it can be problematic, but I'm not sure that I'm convinced that saying someone has OCD necessarily implies any kind of biological or unchangeable condition. I think that issue stems from our traditional belief in things like genetic determinism, and the idea that disorders are "brain illnesses", and not something that can be changed by using different language.

[Girl Achromatism]

I have always believed that for something to be science, it must use the scientific method.

 

The thing about psychology is that it is considered a medical science. Psychologists diagnose and treat patients.

 

However, they DO NOT use the scientific method to diagnose and treat patients, thus it is not a science.

 

There are no definitive tests for any mental illnesses. You can't see crazy on an x-ray or find it in a blood test. A person who suffers from mental illness can see 10 different psychologists and get anywhere from 5-15 different diagnosis. If there were a test for mental illness that could be repeated by others in the same field with the same results, THEN and only then would that be science.

 

In my humble opinion psychology will fall the way of alchemy. Sure alchemy had it's place in the past. It was part science, part chemistry and part hocus-pocus. The same thing could be said about psychology. Advances in neuroscience will replace psychology all together. When you can look at the brain and pinpoint the exact cause of the problem, just like you can look at an x-ray of your leg to see if the bone is broken, then there will finally be some relief for people who suffer from mental illness. THEN it will be science.

[iNow]

The thing about psychology is that it is considered a medical science. Psychologists diagnose and treat patients.

 

However, they DO NOT use the scientific method to diagnose and treat patients, thus it is not a science.

Not all psychology is clinical or therapy-based. Much of it involves the study of cognition, perception, human interactions, physiological reactions, etc. If you include a more accurate picture of what psychology represents into your thinking it much more clearly falls inline with the methodology of science.

[Girl Achromatism]

we evolved through millions of years as small group social primates and in the form of hunting and gathering groups. Neuroscientists are not able to effectively show this neurologically nor are genetists able to genetically.

 

 

 

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

Just because we do not currently have the knowledge or technology to determine our neurological or genetic behavioral predispositions doesn't mean that we don't have them.

 

You can't talk or medicate your eyes into changing their color any more than you can talk or medicate your brain in to behaving differently.

 

Animals (such as man) evolved into social groups as a defense mechanism just as porcupines evolved their quills. Those who were genetically predisposed to empathy and cooperation were embraced by the group and survived to reproduce and pass the trait on to their offspring. Those who were not, were shunned by the group, outcast, and perished.

 

Neuroscience will one day provide scientific tests which will be able to determine definitive causes. Tests which will be measurable and repeatable.

Psychology can make no such claim.

 

Psychology will share a spot in history with Alchemy: A stepping stone on the path to actual science, but NOT an actual science itself.

[sammy7]

this is a quote from charlie darwin (now a corpse) from origin of species (i cant remember what page but w/e)i found it yesterday

 

 

"Psychology will be based on a new

foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation."

 

so his "theory" (theory deserves better) of (macro)evolution has pervaded every sector of everything to do with human thinking/life (imo psychology wouldnt be considered science anyway but thats just mo (not saying some people may not be "helped" by it just mo)) so yeah, if you want to understand modern day systems/schools of thought you have to understand what darwin and all his quack mates did to our way of thinking about things 150 yo or whatever (not saying the school of thought of evolution wasnt around before then coz it was-but thats another story) so darwin +all his mates were all swapping ideas etc etc, im not claiming to know it all because i dont but ive only been reading darwins/lyells/ (there was another guy to who was darwins cousin i think who was in the field of pyschology) etc stuff for a few weeks and can see the effect their opionins/thoughts has had on every area of life we see today. so the construct of modern day psychology is built on "psuedo" science if you will (macro evolution) so its doomed to fail from the very beginning...thanks for your time flame away etc etc...lol

[Mr.Samsa]

I have always believed that for something to be science, it must use the scientific method.

 

The thing about psychology is that it is considered a medical science. Psychologists diagnose and treat patients.

 

However, they DO NOT use the scientific method to diagnose and treat patients, thus it is not a science.

 

Clinical psychology doesn't attempt to be a science, so this criticism is redundant. We may as well attack medicine or engineering for not being falsifiable. The rest of psychology (i.e. the majority) has nothing to do with treating or studying mental disorders though, and is experimental in nature (thus scientific).

 

There are no definitive tests for any mental illnesses. You can't see crazy on an x-ray or find it in a blood test. A person who suffers from mental illness can see 10 different psychologists and get anywhere from 5-15 different diagnosis. If there were a test for mental illness that could be repeated by others in the same field with the same results, THEN and only then would that be science.

 

This assumes that mental disorders are biological, which we know is untrue (at least not all of them). Mental disorders are disorders in thought or behavioral patterns, as such we do have definitive behavioral markers that help us diagnose disorders. The behavioral markers used to diagnose mental disorders are no less objective or accurate than biological markers used in medicine.

 

In my humble opinion psychology will fall the way of alchemy. Sure alchemy had it's place in the past. It was part science, part chemistry and part hocus-pocus. The same thing could be said about psychology. Advances in neuroscience will replace psychology all together. When you can look at the brain and pinpoint the exact cause of the problem, just like you can look at an x-ray of your leg to see if the bone is broken, then there will finally be some relief for people who suffer from mental illness. THEN it will be science.

 

Neuroscience can never replace psychology; such a statement simply demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. Neuroscience and psychology are different levels of explanation, like physics and chemistry. Physics may be able to explain the underlying processes of how chemistry is possible, but it's absurd to suggest that the field of chemistry will be replaced by physics because the specific study of the relationships and emergent phenomena within chemistry are important and necessary. That is, reframing the problem at such a heavily reductionist level results in simplicities and inaccuracies that would make it functionally useless.

 

Psychology is, of course, already a science so we don't need to wait for any revolution.

[Dr. Lennox]

Psychology is a science wherein the "scientists" are mostly ill-equipped to carry out the research. There is research, yes, however just how much of it is important research. The human mind is the Final Frontier, as vastly unexplored in a scientific manner as the known universe. Truly understanding the inner workings of the human mind requires one thing not required of any other science, resolution of one's personal demons to be certain results are purely objective and unaffected by the inner workings of narcissistic deficiency need. The soldier scientists of psychology must first experience "divine madness," then grieve their own deaths as they realize there is nothing in this world that matters except the nurturing relationships we have. And if this is the case, what's the point in doing more scientific research in psychology? It will simply be wasted.

[Mr.Samsa]

Psychology is a science wherein the "scientists" are mostly ill-equipped to carry out the research. There is research, yes, however just how much of it is important research. The human mind is the Final Frontier, as vastly unexplored in a scientific manner as the known universe. Truly understanding the inner workings of the human mind requires one thing not required of any other science, resolution of one's personal demons to be certain results are purely objective and unaffected by the inner workings of narcissistic deficiency need. The soldier scientists of psychology must first experience "divine madness," then grieve their own deaths as they realize there is nothing in this world that matters except the nurturing relationships we have. And if this is the case, what's the point in doing more scientific research in psychology? It will simply be wasted.

 

I don't quite understand your post, Lennox. Are you suggesting that for someone to be a "true" scientist of psychology, they need to experience mental illness of some kind? This (if an accurate representation of your position) is wrong for two reasons:

 

1) do cancer researchers need to have had cancer before they can be considered scientists? Of course not.

 

2) mental illness and "personal demons" are not relevant to most areas of psychology.

 

If I've misunderstood you, then I'd appreciate it if you could clarify what you meant.