Is psychology even a science?

[seriously disabled]

Is psychology even a science compared to say neuroscience, neurology, biochemistry and biophysics for example?

[Phi for All]

What makes you say that?

[seriously disabled]

What makes you say that?

What makes me say what? That psychology isn't really a science?

Edited June 14, 2016 by seriously disabled

[Strange]

Is psychology even a science compared to say neuroscience, neurology, biochemistry and biophysics for example?

 

It can be. After all, it is the approach that makes something science, not the subject.

 

I think there is a lot of good scientific work done in psychology nowadays - although there is still the legacy of Freud and his ilk. But things are definitely improving, especially when it is combined with things like neuroimaging, biochemistry, genetic analysis, etc.

[MonDie]

Give an example of bad psychological science.

 

I recommend pubmed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by MonDie

[Function]

Ouch...

[Velocity_Boy]

Is psychology even a science compared to say neuroscience, neurology, biochemistry and biophysics for example?

 

 

Of course Psychology is a science. Though I have heard some scientists in the STEM fields, including those in the so-called "hard science" disciplines refer to it as a "soft science." I love psych personally, almost majored in it instead of Biology, and I'm thinking of doing my Dissertation on a topic in the realm of Evolutionary Psychology, so I can combine the two things I love the most into one discipline.

 

But yeah, Psych--definitely a science IMHO. And also you have to remember that it incorporates some indisputably "hard science" disciplines, such as molecular biology; neuro-chemistry; as well as various types of Brain Mapping or medical imaging technologies such as fMRI's and PET scans. I guess it could be argued by an adamant detractor of Psych that those technical and hard science disciplines I just mentioned actually belong in the realm of Psychiatry and NOT Psychology, but I would argue that. Psychology is usually concerned more with human behavior and the therapies and other treatments like medication to cure psychiatric illnesses, while I think Psychiatry has gotten to be concerned more with the organic reasons in the brain itself that cause the problems.

 

Things have changed in the field a LOT since, say, Freud and Jung's days. It is rare nowadays for an MD Psychiatrist to actually to therapy with his clients. Those guys usually just throw meds at them. And then if a client DOES want therapy as part of his trx the shrink will refer him to a therapist--usually a PhD or an MPsych in his network. Of course the regulations that stipulate what a person needs in the way of education and credentials to do therapy DO differ wildly from state to state. IN some states almost ANYbody can hang out a shingle for therapy. This practice undoubtedly has allowed some under-qulaified people into the realm and sure hasn't done the overall science of Psychology any favors in maintaining its credibility.

 

Remember too that the entire field of Psychiatry is still in its infancy. It wasn't so very long ago that we were doing frontal lobotomies. And not too long before that where we believed in Phrenology, and not too long before THAT when we figured that boring a hole into the skull to let the demons or the bad humors escape from the brain was effective therapy. Hell, lobotomies were done up until the early 1960s when thankfully a bunch of new psychotropic meds came into the field.

[Prometheus]

The problem psychology had (has?) is in quantifying the phenomena it studies (and whether it is possible to have a science that does not quantify). Can we usefully quantify things like happiness, pain, loneliness - what about that painful yet pleasant feeling parents are said to experience on seeing their children leave the nest?

 

There are loads of neuroscientists in my group and they certainly like to quantify things and generally leave well alone things they cannot. I guess i'm asking the question not whether psychology is a 'real' science - but what is the current domain of psychology in which it can bring the scientific method be bear?

[CharonY]

There is a whole branch of quantitative psychology which develops methods to measure certain attributes and develop statistical models of psychological processes. Other data are semi-quantitative using case-control setups. This method is very pervasive in biological sciences, where quantitative analyses can be very challenging due to biological noise.

[Prometheus]

There is a whole branch of quantitative psychology which develops methods to measure certain attributes...

 

Do you know any details? I'd be interested to know what emotional content can and cannot be measured. I imagine there must be limits to what can be quantified?

[Strange]

With emotional states (which are, by definition, subjective) you can get quite a long way by just asking the subjects to evaluate how they feel.

 

But there are often biochemical measurements which can be used as well. I was reading about a study the other day that looked into the relative effectiveness of a personal meeting, a telephone call or a text message in reducing stress in teenagers. They used the presence of a "stress hormone" (cortisol?) as one way o0f evaluating the effects

[Prometheus]

Yes, the best way to know what someone feels is to ask them. But how reliable are any quantifications based on this? For instance does the likert scale really capture an emotional state to a useful degree? I know I can flitter between extremes on this scale based on a nuanced feeling. Are we able to build any useful mathematical models based on such quantification?

 

The biochemical measures are interesting, but i wonder how they compare to the 'ground truth'. How do we verify just how much cortisol produces how much of a feeling of stress - i guess an experiment was initially needed to ask people how much stress they felt and to correlate this to cortisol levels?

 

Maybe i'm just too dualistic in my thoughts: i can accept that every emotional state has some physical correlate. It seems we first attempt to measure the mental state first, then look for physical correlates - but i just cannot imagine that mental states can be accurately measured, whereas the physical correlates can.

[Essere]

Psychology is the science of calming down. It is therapeutic sitting in a very quiet room and breathing in and out. And unloading what bothers us. Though I do feel sorry for the psychologists that need to take in all the unloading from their patients which leads to some of them committing suicide.

[iNow]

Psychology is the science of calming down. It is therapeutic sitting in a very quiet room and breathing in and out. And unloading what bothers us.

You're referring to a subset of psychology, specifically clinical psychology and/or counseling, not psychology as a whole (and even within that subset it's about far more than just "calming down" and "sitting in a quiet room and breathing."

[CharonY]

 

Do you know any details? I'd be interested to know what emotional content can and cannot be measured. I imagine there must be limits to what can be quantified?

 

Well, there are many textbooks out there but I am not versed enough in the field to give any recommendations.

 

But emotions are not as obscure as one may believe and are only a rather tiny area of this field. And conversely other areas of psychology deal extensively with quantifying emotional responses in a number of contexts. Of course, every measurement methods has limits of sorts, and obviously it there is no probe that specifically measures happiness, for example. Instead, experimental setups are used that are used to elicit certain emotional responses are combined with measurement of certain physiological states that are associated with the emotion. This may include rather obvious measures such as common physiological responses (e.g. heart rate, sweating) self-evaluation (very common and usually quite elaborate) to more elaborate techniques, such as measuring hormone levels various brain imaging techniques, and so on.

[disarray]

I think that couched within the question is the issue as to whether psychological therapies are very effective. We know that medications are effective in that we can measure the impact that they have on a person's body, e.g., activity levels, pulse, etc., but they are not very efficacious in the sense that they don't very often affect the biological and/or psychological issues and behavior that a patient might still have when not on medication.

 

One reason why someone might be prompted to ask the question about the effectiveness of psychotherapy is that Freudian and Jungian therapies have had such mixed results and reviews over the years, a fact that is highlighted by the high expense that many patients paid for such treatment for decades.

 

But yes, we can use scientific methods to examine data, construct treatments, make predictions, and evaluate progress, even though we often or usually don't know exactly what we have done right or what exactly has happened in the person's mind/body when they positively responded to such treatment (but that is not a crucial issue in terms of whether or not we call it a science).

[tkadm30]

Psychology is the science of mental representations of the mind: Modern psychiatry is scientific radicalisation and promote medical oppression to control the complex representations of the mind. The very fundations of psychiatry violates the hippocratic oath : "Do no harm".

[iNow]

^It's amazing the ridiculous BS people post. Sounds like you had a bad therapist, and apparently still need help. I wish you well.

[Strange]

Psychology is the science of mental representations of the mind: Modern psychiatry is scientific radicalisation and promote medical oppression to control the complex representations of the mind. The very fundations of psychiatry violates the hippocratic oath : "Do no harm".

 

 

Please provide some evidence to support this position. (You know, this being a science forum and all that.)

[tkadm30]

Drug-induced neuronal injury is poorly understood. Antipsychotics may cause neurological damage and toxicity to brain cells. All psychiatric treatments are experimental and not based on empirical data of the pathology.

[Prometheus]

Drug-induced neuronal injury is poorly understood. Antipsychotics may cause neurological damage and toxicity to brain cells. All psychiatric treatments are experimental and not based on empirical data of the pathology.

 

Not quite. While it is true that every drug has unwanted effects and that for some people the desired effect of the drug will not work, the decision to medicate should be based on a risk vs benefit analysis, and usually is. These risks and benefits are quantified through clinical trials and post-market surveillance: that is empirical data.

[Strange]

Drug-induced neuronal injury is poorly understood. Antipsychotics may cause neurological damage and toxicity to brain cells.

 

 

Please provide some evidence to support this position. (You know, this being a science forum and all that.)

 

 

All psychiatric treatments are experimental and not based on empirical data of the pathology.

 

They are experimental, you say. So it is science. Good.