Is psychology a real science?

[IrenaPod]

Since mid 20th century, Psychology tries more and more to become a "real science" recognized by all members of the scientific community.

 

Do you think this is a possible venture? What makes science what it is, can Psychology call itself science?

[Galinor Gustave]

Psychology is under the medical sciences section.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/23-psychiatry-and-psychology/

 

another section in medical sciences is neuroscience, & behavioral biology

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/19-anatomy-physiology-and-neuroscience/

 

then there's a section about our organs & the functions of the physical body rather than the metaphysics.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/21-microbiology-and-immunology/

[IrenaPod]

Since mid 20th century, Psychology tries more and more to become a "real science" recognized by all members of the scientific community.

 

Do you think this is a possible venture? What makes science what it is, can Psychology call itself science?

[iNow]

Yes. Not all of it, but much of it. Yes.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Please only open one thread on a topic

[Dekan]

Perhaps Psychology isn't exactly a science - it's more like a study - in the same way that History is a study.

 

I don't think anyone would claim that History is a "science" - but that's not to demean it. It can give insights into how humans tend to behave. As Psychology can.

Both History and Psychology are worthwhile studies. What they seem to lack is the precision, and predictive power, of true sciences such as Physics and Chemistry.

 

Might that change in the future? I'm thinking of Arthur Koestler's novel "Darkness at Noon", in which 1930's Soviet political-prisoner Rubashov speculates about what goes on in Stalin's brain:

 

"He pictured a cross-section through that brain ... the whorls of grey matter curled round one another like muscular snakes, became vague and misty like the spiral nebulae on astronomical charts...what went on in the inflated grey whorls ... one knew nothing. Perhaps, much later, a teacher would draw on a blackboard an algebraic formula, and, pointing with his ruler to a grey foggy landscape between the second and third lobe of Stalin's brain, say "Now it was this, which in the second quarter of the twentieth century led to the triumph of the totalitarian principle in Eastern Europe".

 

Could Psychology ever get to that stage?

[ewmon]

I've heard psychology/psychiatry called a "soft science".

[iNow]

Perhaps Psychology isn't exactly a science - it's more like a study - in the same way that History is a study.

 

I don't think anyone would claim that History is a "science" - but that's not to demean it. It can give insights into how humans tend to behave. As Psychology can.

History doesn't make testable predictions or put forth hypotheses and reject them based on the evidence that turns up. We need to be cautious when we discuss psychology as everyone tends to think of something different when they reference the term. Some people think of Freudian psychoanalysis while others think of Skinnerian conditioning while still others think of reaction time studies and brain imaging.

 

Psychology is very much a science. There are, however, parts of it that are not rooted in the scientific method. It just depends on the domain to which you are referring.

 

 

Both History and Psychology are worthwhile studies. What they seem to lack is the precision, and predictive power, of true sciences such as Physics and Chemistry.

I disagree. I suspect very strongly that the predictive power you cite would come with more computing power. Even physics struggles to model the behavior of more than 3 billiard balls. With enough computational power, there isn't really anything preventing us from having both precision and prediction in psychological studies.

Edited November 23, 2012 by iNow

[doG]

I've heard psychology/psychiatry called a "soft science".

Your manner of writing psychology/psychiatry gives the impression that these are interchangeable terms when they are not.

 

Psychiatrists are medical doctors practicing medicine in the treatment of mental disorders, many of which are treated medicinally for things like chemical imbalances. It is a science of medicine like any other branch of medicine. The scientific method is utilized in this field the same as in other branches of medical practice.

 

Psychology is argumentatively a science since it does not rigorously adhere to the scientific method but it is a valid attempt to apply scientific study to behavior and cognitive ability. I could see it as a soft science.

[ewmon]

I do respect the fact that psychiatry is a specialized branch of medicine, which is a science, and I don't doubt that psychiatry provides a scientific analysis and response for many patients and that psychiatry works as a hard science in those cases.

 

However, in many instances with both psychology and psychiatry, there seems to be insufficient objectivity, and there can't be until they invent instruments that can read people's thoughts and feelings. Until then, both psychology and psychiatry will, in many cases, continue to attempt to measure something that's broken with something that's broken (ie, subjective self-reporting), and in those cases, I find myself unable to call them a hard science.

[PsychGirl]

iNow, you observe:

 

"Psychology is very much a science. There are, however, parts of it that are not rooted in the scientific method. It just depends on the domain to which you are referring."

 

 

There is truth in your statement. I hold a Master of Science in Psychology, and am currently in dissertation for PhD in Psychology.

 

 

There are reliable scientific studies pertaining to behavioral science, and there are aspects of practice that are less than exact. In therapy, for example, one cannot qualify and quantify every aspect of a client's soul. The how's and why's of therapy are not always understood. A therapist once told me, "We don't know why it works, but it does." In other areas (my area of study), measurement of personality traits and motivational factors can lead to statistical evidence about behavior, which can lead to some fairly reliable predictions.

[Miser]

The ability for the different disciplines of science to derive laws falls on a spectrum of effectiveness, as addressed by Aristotle that strict laws are found in the heavens only; terrestrial events come and go in a much less regular way. "The sun rises everyday but animals occasionally give birth to monsters. (Feyerabend)" In this respect, psychology is a soft science because it deals with the most complicated, unpredictable matter we know-us.

 

Put simply, there are parts of psychology more scientific than others. The more reductionist the more biological, the more quantifiable and the less interesting (my opinion). When one looks at the practical aspect of psychology, much of it is an art. Notably the art of communicating effectively which involves saying the right words and accurately reading emotional responses. Though Freud's ideas have long been scientifically obsolete, Irvin Yalom, a psychiatrist for more than 20 years (who incidentally looks a bit like Freud), advocates the use of Freud's dream analysis in therapy. Though REM sleep is regarded as the intellectually restoring part of sleep, nuances of dreams is still far out of reach for scientists.

 

And that is what makes psychology one of the most exciting fields in the whole wide world. I define it as both an Art and a Science-if you should pursue a career in therapy-as every experience in life gives us information about how we work. The world of a psychologist is full of intrigue and mystery and science is the candle to illuminate it all.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[PsychGirl]

Miser, well said, I think.

 

It is hard to quantify intuition, and those of us who are strongly intuitive cannot always tell you HOW we know what to say and when to say it -- we just KNOW. There is some evidence that Intuitives are reading body language and other abstract cues to come up with their conclusions.

 

 

I am a fan of Jung, and his dream theories. Jung and Freud parted ways after collaborating for many years, but I believe each has merit of his own.

 

 

My area of expertise is in personality and motivation, and in particular the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which was built upon the personality theories Jung proposed.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

[Miser]

Miser, well said, I think.

 

It is hard to quantify intuition, and those of us who are strongly intuitive cannot always tell you HOW we know what to say and when to say it -- we just KNOW. There is some evidence that Intuitives are reading body language and other abstract cues to come up with their conclusions.

 

 

I am a fan of Jung, and his dream theories. Jung and Freud parted ways after collaborating for many years, but I believe each has merit of his own.

 

 

My area of expertise is in personality and motivation, and in particular the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which was built upon the personality theories Jung proposed.

http://www.humanmetr...win/jtypes2.asp

 

It's not a stretch to say many psychology students would admit to being good judges of character. Any superb psychoanalytic books that you'd recommend?

 

I'm also an INFP, I'm hoping to pursue a career in Clinical Psychology and then begin writing when I have a firm grip on my financial status because that's what the Myers-Briggs recommends. But most importantly, I feel like it's the right thing to do (I wonder if you catch the very unfunny joke). Ever since I had memory, I wanted to tell people what my experiences are and what my feelings are on a subject. That's why I find values and subjective truths, instead of hard-sciences, to be far more interesting and personally relevant. Well who knows why, but here's my attempt at an accurate narrative.

 

Also, is it a far-cry to say that ADHD isn't a disorder according to Jungians? I say this because I believe Jungians consider all personality traits as part of the person. A person with ADHD could focus on certain tasks extremely well, so long as it interests them.

 

So what's your personality type? You seem like one of the thinker types.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[PsychGirl]

I think the ADHD diagnosis is WAY overused and the behavior that is observed as ADHD can have many influential variables -- diet, for example. I have read of drastic behavioral changes when diet was improved -- the removal of sugar, for example, and processed foods. So, I have never heard a discussion about ADHD as it pertains to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. And don't get me started on my beliefs about the overuse of psychopharmacology in the psychiatric world.

 

Actually, on a personal level, I am an INFP, also. However, in the academic world and in the corporate world (I work with the Information Technology people, and I am a corporate writer and trainer), INFP doesn't work out too well. So I LEARNED to function as an ENTJ. I met another Master's of Science consultant a few years ago who said the same thing: She is an INFP personally but functions in the workplace as an ENTJ.

 

 

I am a writer, also -- so I understand the compulsion to tell stories.

 

I can recommend some superb psychoanalytic works. Dr. James Holllis, who is a certified Jungian analyst (and under whom I have sat for instruction), has written several books. He is nothing short of profound. He writes things I have felt but have not articulated -- and that's saying something for me because I am a writer. I have several (most) of his books. But I think this one, The Eden Project: The Search for the Magical Other, is one of the most profound things I have read in my life. I HIGHLY recommend this wonderful and disturbing book. I told Dr. Hollis, "Your book is true, but I wish it weren't." He said that a lot of people have said that to him.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Eden-Project-Psychology-Analysis/dp/0919123805/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353802428&sr=8-2&keywords=Dr.+James+HOllis

[Miser]

I think the ADHD diagnosis is WAY overused and the behavior that is observed as ADHD can have many influential variables -- diet, for example. I have read of drastic behavioral changes when diet was improved -- the removal of sugar, for example, and processed foods. So, I have never heard a discussion about ADHD as it pertains to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. And don't get me started on my beliefs about the overuse of psychopharmacology in the psychiatric world.

 

Actually, on a personal level, I am an INFP, also. However, in the academic world and in the corporate world (I work with the Information Technology people, and I am a corporate writer and trainer), INFP doesn't work out too well. So I LEARNED to function as an ENTJ. I met another Master's of Science consultant a few years ago who said the same thing: She is an INFP personally but functions in the workplace as an ENTJ.

 

 

I am a writer, also -- so I understand the compulsion to tell stories.

 

I can recommend some superb psychoanalytic works. Dr. James Holllis, who is a certified Jungian analyst (and under whom I have sat for instruction), has written several books. He is nothing short of profound. He writes things I have felt but have not articulated -- and that's saying something for me because I am a writer. I have several (most) of his books. But I think this one, The Eden Project: The Search for the Magical Other, is one of the most profound things I have read in my life. I HIGHLY recommend this wonderful and disturbing book. I told Dr. Hollis, "Your book is true, but I wish it weren't." He said that a lot of people have said that to him.

 

http://www.amazon.co...r.+James+HOllis

 

 

And to add to that, good discipline in a child can also prevent ADHD. ADHD in France is of a much lower rate than that in America.

 

 

I don't agree with the use of psychopharamacology personally but their popularity comes naturally with such a shortage of therapists in the world. As the Conservative Commentator William F Buckley once said "Idealism is fine. But when it approaches reality, the cost becomes prohibitive." I just see it as it is. Here's to hoping tomorrow will be better than today.

 

You seem very high-minded and very disciplined, looking at your track record. Talk more about the contributing factors of your success.

[John Cuthber]

And to add to that, good discipline in a child can also prevent ADHD.

 

http://xkcd.com/285/

[PsychGirl]

 

You seem very high-minded and very disciplined, looking at your track record. Talk more about the contributing factors of your success.

 

 

I don't think I consider myself successful. There are still goals I would like to achieve. But it is very simple. When I see something I want to do, or achieve, I examine that goal, figure out what steps I need to take to achieve it, and then just do it. When obstacles arise (as they always do), just keep looking for a way around, or through.

[Miser]

And to add to that, good discipline in a child can also prevent ADHD.

 

http://xkcd.com/285/

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd

[John Cuthber]

Oh, I see, it's true because someone trying to sell a book says so, and has published this in a non- peer reviewed magazine.

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Suffer_the_Children.html?id=N1j1C_Pg-vYC

 

Still, it's an interesting theory.

From it I deduce that either my brother and his wife suddenly moved from France to the US between their first child and their second (odd, I'd have thought I'd have noticed- particularly since they seemed to be in the UK)

Or, perhaps, having raised on child, they forgot how to do it with the second.

Edited November 25, 2012 by John Cuthber

[LaurieAG]

Hi PsychGirl and Miser,

 

Actually, on a personal level, I am an INFP, also. However, in the academic world and in the corporate world (I work with the Information Technology people, and I am a corporate writer and trainer), INFP doesn't work out too well. So I LEARNED to function as an ENTJ. I met another Master's of Science consultant a few years ago who said the same thing: She is an INFP personally but functions in the workplace as an ENTJ.

I am an ENTJ who had a non technical supervisor and manager. It was a bit of a worry actually and I do not work for that company anymore.

 

While you as a INFP understand why you learned to function as an ENTJ PsychGirl, do you think the opposite should be true for technical roles or is there a limit?

 

I am an applied scientist so I would be interested in hearing what you think.

Edited November 26, 2012 by LaurieAG

[Miser]

Oh, I see, it's true because someone trying to sell a book says so, and has published this in a non- peer reviewed magazine.

 

http://books.google....id=N1j1C_Pg-vYC

 

Still, it's an interesting theory.

From it I deduce that either my brother and his wife suddenly moved from France to the US between their first child and their second (odd, I'd have thought I'd have noticed- particularly since they seemed to be in the UK)

Or, perhaps, having raised on child, they forgot how to do it with the second.

 

Just because they want to sell books doesn't make their claim more false. This magazine is an forum for those who posses the rare 'tacit knowledge' required for psychology to talk about their interpretation on the available data. It isn't meant to be fully scientific.

[iNow]

Just because they want to sell books doesn't make their claim more false.

The problem is that people can say anything they want in books regardless if it is true or not. Books are not a good reference in support of our claims because books are not reviewed for accuracy or connection with reality prior to publication. Books often also suggest that wizards and trolls are unicorns are real, or that people are living on Europa or traveling through vast epochs of space meeting alien civilizations. That doesn't mean that they are.

 

Fully scientific or not, you should always strive to use the most credible and reliable sources in support of your assertions. Peer reviewed articles that support specific points are best. Please don't get me wrong... When your sources are weak, that's okay. You can still make assertions and put forth hypotheses or conjectures, but you need to be a bit more open to correction and and acknowledge the large uncertainty in your position when you do.

Edited November 26, 2012 by iNow

[Dekan]

When I see something I want to do, or achieve, I examine that goal, figure out what steps I need to take to achieve it, and then just do it. When obstacles arise (as they always do), just keep looking for a way around, or through.

 

That's right. Modern society can provide plenty of opportunities for people to achieve their goals - even if the goals are sometimes a bit dodgy.

 

For example:

 

1. Exhibitionists can join naturist clubs.

2. Hot-tempered violent persons, can enlist in the army, or take up boxing.

3. Those with sadistic desires to cut human flesh, can become surgeons.

 

These are all legal ways of sublimating base urges, and making them respectable, or even admired.

 

But most people don't seem to take the rational, considered approach suggested in your post. Does something in human nature oppose it?

[iNow]

But most people don't seem to take the rational, considered approach suggested in your post. Does something in human nature oppose it?

Until you demonstrate adequately with evidence that "most people don't take rational approaches" it would be a complete and total waste of effort speculating and seeking explanations for why that is so.