Psychology ?

[Void]

Ok ok...I will retract my statement...A probably causes B.

[Flareon]

I tell you what, let me hit you in the face, and we'll see what you think caused your pain?

 

LOL... Now I definitely KNOW you have absolutely nothing valid to say.

[Void]

Come on, can't take a joke all of sudden?

[Flareon]

Come on, can't take a joke all of sudden?

 

::Points to my previous post:: I laughed didn't I?

[Exordium]

I suppose psychoanalysis could be considered a combination of science with intuition, or "art", but psychology is a science in my opinion.

[Void]

Psychoanalytic has been tested in scientific manner. Just look at research during the 1950's with the work of Robert Sears. Unfortunately, the concepts were investigated under a behaviorist frmaework. Concerning the therapeutic benefits, Gene Glass conducted a meta-analysis that showed "talk-therapy" as working just as well as other techniques.

[boxhead]

I suppose psychoanalysis could be considered a combination of science with intuition, or "art", but psychology is a science in my opinion.

yes that is what i think too. but psychoanalysis is also a part of psychology.

[boxhead]

Psychoanalytic has been tested in scientific manner. Just look at research during the 1950's with the work of Robert Sears. Unfortunately, the concepts were investigated under a behaviorist frmaework. Concerning the therapeutic benefits, Gene Glass conducted a meta-analysis that showed "talk-therapy" as working just as well as other techniques.

than why so many universities around the world has department of psychology under faculty of arts.

[Void]

than why so many universities around the world has department of psychology under faculty of arts.

 

You mean Arts & Humanities? Yes, that can be true, but I see a new movement toward psychology and other social sciences breaking off into schools or colleges of there own. Look at the University of California, Irvine, which as a School of Social Ecology. Point being, social sciences are clearly different from subjects such as English literature, History, etc...

[Flareon]

yes that is what i think too. but psychoanalysis is also a part of psychology.

 

Psychoanalysis is and has been becoming outmoded. If it's still in use, it's usually because the money earned is the prime motivator. This statement comes directly from the mouth of my former psych professor who also worked for years as a psychoanalyst.

 

Very few psychologists actually believe that psychoanalysis is true psychology. Psychoanalysis is taught in psych classes the way the Bohr atomic model (which is obsolete and disproven) is still taught in chemistry: because it is useful.

[boxhead]

Psychoanalysis is and has been becoming outmoded. If it's still in use' date=' it's usually because the money earned is the prime motivator. This statement comes directly from the mouth of my former psych professor who also worked for years as a psychoanalyst.

 

Very few psychologists actually believe that psychoanalysis is true psychology. Psychoanalysis is taught in psych classes the way the Bohr atomic model (which is obsolete and disproven) is still taught in chemistry: because it is useful.[/quote']

may be you are right but i still believe freud.

[Void]

Psychoanalysis is and has been becoming outmoded. If it's still in use' date=' it's usually because the money earned is the prime motivator. This statement comes directly from the mouth of my former psych professor who also worked for years as a psychoanalyst.

 

[/quote']

 

Although I do not agree with the tenets of the theory, it has been shown, emprically, to work. If you want cost effective therapy, shop around.

[Ophiolite]

may be you are right but i still believe freud.

Was it Woody Allen who summarised Freud's theories as "If it's not one thing, it's your mother."?

[ramin]

Psychology is the medium between neuroscience, a science, and sociology, an art. It is NOT a science as in biology and never will be, because society affects human psychology, and study of social influence is a science in a different sense than biology etc (e.g. it does not study mechanisms in the level of discreteness and physicality of science).

[Void]

Psychology is the medium between neuroscience, a science, and sociology, an art. It is NOT a science as in biology and never will be, because society affects human psychology, and study of social influence is a science in a different sense than biology etc (e.g. it does not study mechanisms in the level of discreteness and physicality of science).

 

What, and you don't think society affects biology? Take a look at system dynamics theory and "maybe" you'll get an idea of where modern evolutionary developmental psychology is going. Its all about gene-environment interactions and genetic assimilation.

 

Not a science my ass.

[ramin]

What' date=' and you don't think society affects biology? Take a look at system dynamics theory and "maybe" you'll get an idea of where modern evolutionary developmental psychology is going. Its all about gene-environment interactions and genetic assimilation.

 

Not a science my ass.[/quote']

 

You didn't read the post. Psychology can never be a science such as biology because it will have to deal with abstract, non-physical, and undiscoverable features of the environment. It will always be an art.

 

Neuroscience, the biology end of psychology, is a science in the pure sense. How the environment interacts with neuroscience is again an art, because you are not dealing with purely observable phenomena. Furthermore, psychology can never be a science because its inferences can never be stable and systematic. Perhaps the most important, and interesting, is that making psychology a science is a reduction of humans to a determined (non-wonderous, 'figured out') phenomenon which they're not. A human reflecting on its own 'figured out-ness' is an oxymoron. Humans are the inventors of science. Psychology is useful as an art for more innovations, alleviations, etc, which draws upon science heavily.

[Void]

You didn't read the post. Psychology can never be a science such as biology because it will have to deal with abstract, non-physical, and undiscoverable features of the environment. It will always be an art.

 

Not everything in "hard" sciences is directly observable either. Ever seen a electron? No, of course not, you can only observe their behavior. Same applies for psychology. We can't see the what is "in" the mind, but from observing an individuals "behavior" we can sure make some reliable inferences.

 

Neuroscience, the biology end of psychology, is a science in the pure sense. How the environment interacts with neuroscience is again an art, because you are not dealing with purely observable phenomena. Furthermore, psychology can never be a science because its inferences can never be stable and systematic. Perhaps the most important, and interesting, is that making psychology a science is a reduction of humans to a determined (non-wonderous, 'figured out') phenomenon which they're not. A human reflecting on its own 'figured out-ness' is an oxymoron. Humans are the inventors[/i'] of science. Psychology is useful as an art for more innovations, alleviations, etc, which draws upon science heavily.

 

First of all, how can psychology be deterministic if we don't have "laws"? If anything, hard sciences are far more deterministic than psychology.

 

Second, we do employ systematic methods. So our inferences are reliable to a point. Knowledge is no more than the probability of a truth, and while hard science can offer more accurate predictions, we do fairly well given the dynamic and multidetermined phenomena we study.

 

I just don't understand you post, you say that we are not "stable" but "deterministic"....Sounds a little contradicting.

[ramin]

Not everything in "hard" sciences is directly observable either. Ever seen a electron? No' date=' of course not, you can only observe their behavior. Same applies for psychology. We can't see the what is "in" the mind, but from observing an individuals "behavior" we can sure make some reliable inferences.

 

 

 

First of all, how can psychology be deterministic if we don't have "laws"? If anything, hard sciences are far more deterministic than psychology.

 

Second, we do employ systematic methods. So our inferences are reliable to a point. Knowledge is no more than the probability of a truth, and while hard science can offer more accurate predictions, we do fairly well given the dynamic and multidetermined phenomena we study.

 

I just don't understand you post, you say that we are not "stable" but "deterministic"....Sounds a little contradicting.[/quote']

 

If you agree that psychology can not be as much of a determinable "science" as the sciences, then you have agreed with me regarding psychology not being able to be a hard science.

[Mokele]

It is NOT a science as in biology and never will be, because society affects human psychology, and study of social influence is a science in a different sense than biology etc (e.g. it does not study mechanisms in the level of discreteness and physicality of science).

 

Wrong, in two major ways.

 

Firstly, biology *also* studies social interactions, just not between humans. Dominance rituals, mating dances, competition within and between species, etc. Other animals can learn from each other two; even octopi can learn a skill by watching a fellow perform it. Chimps and many other primates have "cultures", in which certain learned behaviors are present or absent or variant between populations. Learning is common, and how does that prevent the study of anything? It makes it harder, yes, but that can be dealt with.

 

Secondly, why do you assume we cannot quantify and discretely measure human interactions. I can quantify, for example, how stressed someone is by bullying, by simply taking blood samples immediately after the event and assessing corticosteroid levels. Other variables of behavior can be quantified, such as sterotyped patterns that always occur in response to a stimuli.

 

Psychology can never be a science such as biology because it will have to deal with abstract, non-physical, and undiscoverable features of the environment. It will always be an art.

 

Actually, many aspects of psychology deals with the quantifiable. For instance, the effectiveness of various therapies designed to get people off drugs can be quantified by the rate of relapse. Not to mention that "pyschology" often includes things as simple as exploring how our sensory system works and interacts with our brain (do congitive biases alter perceptions, for instance).

 

How the environment interacts with neuroscience is again an art, because you are not dealing with purely observable phenomena.

 

So, is any study in biology which deals with animals that can learn "not science"? By your criterion, all studies of animal behavior are "not science" because it interacts with the environment.

 

Hell, by your criterion, *genetics* isn't a science because genes and gene products interact with the environment to produce the phenotype of the organism. For instance, siamese cats are 100% black, geneticly. But on the protiens in the melanin production pathway is temperature senstive, and can't function at the temp of the cat's skin over the main body, only in the cooler extremities, hence why the "tips" of the animal are black. But, since the environment is involved, I guess you don't think that's a scientific conclusion.

 

Furthermore, psychology can never be a science because its inferences can never be stable and systematic.

 

I'm studying snake locomotion. The snakes do *not* behave in the same way between trials. Does this mean my results are useless and "not science" because the cycle time of the snake's movement I find is only approximate?

 

In fact, by your deterministic arguement, nothing is a science. Last I checked, a ball doesn't roll down a ramp with *precisely* the same speed every time; a million tiny random imperfections slightly alter the speed every time. What about chemistry? Ever read an NMR? The hydrogen spike isn't always in *exactly* the same place, nor is there a way to calculate it in advance to any reasonable accuracy. So it that not a science? Let's not forget biology as a whole, which tends to have all sorts of complicating factors that makes results go awry from what they "should" be.

 

If you insist on total determinism, nothing is a science. If there's some "wiggle room", then the definition of what constitutes acceptable variablibity in predicted results in essentially arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

 

What makes something a science? Hypothesis, prediction, observation, conclusion. Testable, falsifable hypotheses. Psychology as a whole clearly fits that bill, regardless of how odd some of the sub-fields are. After all, before you criticise Freud, remember that *some* of his ideas have been borne out by experimental tests, which I certainly cannot say for Superstring.

 

Mokele

[ramin]

Wrong' date=' in two major ways.

 

Firstly, biology *also* studies social interactions, just not between humans. Dominance rituals, mating dances, competition within and between species, etc. Other animals can learn from each other two; even octopi can learn a skill by watching a fellow perform it. Chimps and many other primates have "cultures", in which certain learned behaviors are present or absent or variant between populations. Learning is common, and how does that prevent the study of anything? It makes it harder, yes, but that can be dealt with.

 

Secondly, why do you assume we cannot quantify and discretely measure human interactions. I can quantify, for example, how stressed someone is by bullying, by simply taking blood samples immediately after the event and assessing corticosteroid levels. Other variables of behavior can be quantified, such as sterotyped patterns that always occur in response to a stimuli.

 

 

 

Actually, many aspects of psychology deals with the quantifiable. For instance, the effectiveness of various therapies designed to get people off drugs can be quantified by the rate of relapse. Not to mention that "pyschology" often includes things as simple as exploring how our sensory system works and interacts with our brain (do congitive biases alter perceptions, for instance).

 

 

 

So, is any study in biology which deals with animals that can learn "not science"? By your criterion, all studies of animal behavior are "not science" because it interacts with the environment.

 

Hell, by your criterion, *genetics* isn't a science because genes and gene products interact with the environment to produce the phenotype of the organism. For instance, siamese cats are 100% black, geneticly. But on the protiens in the melanin production pathway is temperature senstive, and can't function at the temp of the cat's skin over the main body, only in the cooler extremities, hence why the "tips" of the animal are black. But, since the environment is involved, I guess you don't think that's a scientific conclusion.

 

 

 

I'm studying snake locomotion. The snakes do *not* behave in the same way between trials. Does this mean my results are useless and "not science" because the cycle time of the snake's movement I find is only approximate?

 

In fact, by your deterministic arguement, nothing is a science. Last I checked, a ball doesn't roll down a ramp with *precisely* the same speed every time; a million tiny random imperfections slightly alter the speed every time. What about chemistry? Ever read an NMR? The hydrogen spike isn't always in *exactly* the same place, nor is there a way to calculate it in advance to any reasonable accuracy. So it that not a science? Let's not forget biology as a whole, which tends to have all sorts of complicating factors that makes results go awry from what they "should" be.

 

If you insist on total determinism, nothing is a science. If there's some "wiggle room", then the definition of what constitutes acceptable variablibity in predicted results in essentially arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

 

What makes something a science? Hypothesis, prediction, observation, conclusion. Testable, falsifable hypotheses. Psychology as a whole clearly fits that bill, regardless of how odd some of the sub-fields are. After all, before you criticise Freud, remember that *some* of his ideas have been borne out by experimental tests, which I certainly cannot say for Superstring.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Those points may be right, but it still doesn't mean that Psychology can ever be a science fully. The elaborated and non-ambiguious version of the argument is the following:

Neuroscience, the biology end of psychology, is a science in the pure sense. How the environment interacts with neuroscience is again an art, because you are not dealing with purely observable phenomena. Furthermore, psychology can never be a science because its inferences can never be stable and systematic. Perhaps the most important, and interesting, is that making psychology a science is a reduction of humans to a determined (non-wonderous, 'figured out') phenomenon which they're not. A human reflecting on its own 'figured out-ness' is an oxymoron. Humans are the inventors of science. Psychology is useful as an art for more innovations, alleviations, etc, which draws upon science heavily.

 

First thing to note is that I'm not saying that a field has to yield fully stable results in order to be a science, the point you accurately point out. My point is that the stability and determinism of psychological findings is different in nature than the other sciences, and this very factor makes it an art always, at least partly. Namely, humans will always have the domain of using scientific findings creatively and philosophically to draw conclusions about life, society, and psychological dynamics. In this view it is an art that is based on science and applied science, and thus is not reducible to science.

 

I believe this is also consistent with the effective chaos theory if you've heard of it.

 

If they made Psychology more an art in conjunction with science, it would be much more successful. This is what you might see happening with the emergence of cognitive science (which is also an art, and in a suitably different way than psycohlogy).

[Mokele]

My point is that the stability and determinism of psychological findings is different in nature than the other sciences, and this very factor makes it an art always, at least partly.

 

How is there any qualitative difference between studying the behavior of a human, a chimp and a rat? I mean, they're all mammals, and thus similar in form and behavior. What makes the study of human behavior different form the study of monkey behavior, which you evidently consider a science? After all, the only difference is that we're smarter, and think faster. That's all, we're just a smart monkey. I fail to see how qualitative differences could even arise.

 

Namely, humans will always have the domain of using scientific findings creatively and philosophically to draw conclusions about life, society, and psychological dynamics. In this view it is an art that is based on science and applied science, and thus is not reducible to science.

 

How does our ability to interpret the finding in any way we see fit make it less of science? I mean, look at quantum physics and the sheer amount of Newage (no space, pronounced like "sewage") crap that's been based on it and typical misunderstandings of it.

 

Just because we can apply, for instance, operant conditioning to rid someone of a phobia does not make the discovery of operant conditioning any less of a scientific discovery. That's like saying that the invention of lasers for CD players make quantum not a science.

 

I believe this is also consistent with the effective chaos theory if you've heard of it.

 

I know of Chaos theory, but fail to see what it has to do with this discussion.

 

Mokele

[ramin]

Another way of saying all this may be that human life is fast-paced and always changing and thus it cannot be solely based on principles, unless it is the opposite principle of scientific principles: that it can not be based on principles.

 

Read chaos theory (I think)...

[Mokele]

Another way of saying all this may be that human life is fast-paced and always changing and thus it cannot be solely based on principles, unless it is the opposite principle of scientific principles: that it can not be based on principles.

 

So what? Does that mean that I can't study a honeybee hive? After all, it's far more fast-paced and also always changing. It presents obstacles to study, I agree, but I fail to see why it prevents any scientific study at all. I mean, if we can study elements that only exist artificially, for a fraction of a second, why are humans that hard?

 

Mokele

[ramin]

How is there any qualitative difference between studying the behavior of a human, a chimp and a rat? I mean, they're all mammals, and thus similar in form and behavior. What makes the study of human behavior different form the study of monkey behavior, which you evidently consider a science? After all, the only difference is that we're smarter, and think faster. That's all, we're just a smart monkey. I fail to see how qualitative differences could even arise.

 

Why would you assume that I think primate and other animal life is also solely science, and use that as an argument? Just because science is necessary, it doesn't mean it is complete to me.

 

 

How does our ability to interpret the finding in any way we see fit make it less of science? I mean, look at quantum physics and the sheer amount of Newage (no space, pronounced like "sewage") crap that's been based on it and typical misunderstandings of it.

 

We cannot explain ourselves and our behavior via solely observations and data. Neither can we with life and behavior of birds. Philosophy will interfere, and in a direct way as opposed to its relation to physics, biology and bio-chemistry say. Furthermore, psychology is self-reflective. We look for data to understand principles, but we use these principles in our construction of our lives, making it an art. The principles of physics and biology, on the other hand, define their domains completely and this does not count as reduction. These principles will be used outside of their domains for the same reason psychology uses its principles, only the use of these principles are part of the psychology domain.

 

Just because we can apply, for instance, operant conditioning to rid someone of a phobia does not make the discovery of operant conditioning any less of a scientific discovery.

 

What we use and how is an art. Operant conditioning could be a scientific discovery in the science subdomain of psychology.

 

That's like saying that the invention of lasers for CD players make quantum not a science.

 

False analogy. The art of invention based on physics, such as inventing lasers, is not necessarily part of physics, though inventing therapy is a part of psychology.

 

 

I know of Chaos theory, but fail to see what it has to do with this discussion.

 

If I'm not mistaken it says that human behavior is unpredictable.

[ramin]

This is partly an argument about boundaries. The difference between psychology and molecular biology and physics say may be a quantitative as opposed to qualitative one, to some extent. Though it seems that a part of psychology will also be purely art, always.