Thread: Psychology: A religion for the rational?

I was having a discussion with a friend, who directed me to an article:
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

The article states that psychology is not a real science, and is closer to a religion. The main point of the article is that psychological theories do not have to be entirely correct, and are not put through the same amount of scrutiny that would be comparable to other branches of science. Proper tests cannot be done because of ethical considerations, and theories can be published based entirely around opinions, with facts to back them up. Psychology seems a lot like a religion, which tries to diagnose good and bad behavior, and while it has the backing of science, it doesn't have to have near as much support.

I still think that psychology has a more worth than (traditional) religions do, but should it be considered a true science because it tries to draw conclusions based on behavior with the scientific method? I never hear it referred to as a "Liberal Art," and I've never really thought of it that way, but should it be considered that instead of a traditional science?

I think that psychology is to neuroscience what alchemy is to chemistry. However, psychology is able to draw some valid conclusions. I don't think psychology will be entirely phased out like alchemy, but it should definitely improve in quality and accuracy as neuroscience advances.

The problem with psychology at the moment is that it's attempting to predict the behavior of an extremely complex system (the brain) without knowledge of exactly how this system works.

I would consider it a true science, but most psychology is just BAD science - we simply don't know enough about the human brain yet to draw many conclusions about its emergent properties on a macro scale.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think that psychology is to neuroscience what alchemy is to chemistry. However, psychology is able to draw some valid conclusions. I don't think psychology will be entirely phased out like alchemy, but it should definitely improve in quality and accuracy as neuroscience advances.

No, there are separations: psychology studies emergent behaviour and its field study the specific behaviours of the human subject. For example; behaviourism:strictly what we can observe, cognition:how humans problem solve, rationalize, etc., developmental:how humans develop understanding of the world, etc.

Neuroscience studies the intricacies of our brain biology; nothing more. To attach psychology to neuroscience is really biopsychology (or neuropsychology, if you still want to sound smart).

The problem with psychology at the moment is that it's attempting to predict the behavior of an extremely complex system (the brain) without knowledge of exactly how this system works.

What do you mean by "without knowledge of exactly how this system works"? We have significant ways of prediction. Of course, it significantly relies on statistics and inductive reasoning and this is actually good because it returns to, and gives room for, the humans freedom to remain in existance.

I would consider it a true science, but most psychology is just BAD science - we simply don't know enough about the human brain yet to draw many conclusions about its emergent properties on a macro scale.

How so? What would it take to show this statement otherwise?

We can analyze and described a plethora of behaviours, cognitions, etc. We also have, contrary to what you seem to believe, a rather extensive understanding of the brain. Where is it that you think we do not?
~

Yes, I think psychology is a science, but a slow one at that. Actually, the lack of research because of ethical reasons is the main problem I suppose.

But that doesn't mean psychological findings aren't valid. If you get any other branch of science - biology, for example - its roots were far from scientifical. Take the abiogenesis theory for example. Or the vital force theory in chemistry.

I think psychology will evolve as we learn more about how the brain works - and studies such that of lucid dreaming play a major role at it. But it doesn't mean it isn't an important branch of science as of now.

Now I'm gonna finish the post because sleep deprivation won't lemme go on

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, I think psychology is a science, but a slow one at that. Actually, the lack of research because of ethical reasons is the main problem I suppose.

qed

~

I mean, perhaps not now anymore, since the scientific community has grown far more critic, but if you get Freud's research and conclusions, you'll see he made the most elementary mistakes, such as generalising, searching for evidence to justify a theory, and concluding things from inconclusive evidence. I particularly dislike the second theory of the psychic apparatus (death and life pulses? oh c'mon that is more like a religion, yeah), and the human development. It's as if everything was explained by sexuality.

But once again, psychology has grown a lot and now deserves a lot of credit for scientific research. But I still don't think it is as advanced as e.g. chemistry or mathematics.

---

Another thing is research. I mean, you can't just put developing human beings in the weirdest trial conditions and see how they react. In fact, I'd love to see how a person would develop if completely isolated from any other human beings... would they think like us? How big is the role society plays? Would they develop language? Would the differences related to sex still be present? But c'mon, ethics would never allow such a research.

---

and lol @ qed ^^

---
never made so many English mistakes in a post, Geez

Psychology goes through a lot more scientific scrutiny than this article claims. It's what is known as a soft science but is far from a "belief system" because all theories must still go through testing and scrutiny. The fact is a lot of the findings are based on case studies but it's still evidence, just "soft evidence" and where does one draw the line between hard and soft science anyway? It's more like a spectrum, and case studies are a lot closer to hard evidence than a lot of what passes as hard evidence anyway. Cosmology uses a lot less evidence than psychology, as well.

Psychology, in its endeavour to understand human behaviour, will have many challenges and humiliations to face. It will face mistakes in understanding, predictions, and explanations just as any other science ever has. It will succumb to ethical concerns, just as any other science will.

Psychiatry integrates ethical concerns and this is where the labelling of "good" vs "bad" behaviour becomes integral. The important point here is that this ought to be separated and forgotten when considering whether or not psychology is a science. This can turn into an entirely different conversation based off of these grounds.

The the original point, psychology utilizes the scientific method and relies (almost entirely) on statistics and inductive reasoning. Of course, there are problems with inductive reasoning and, as David Hume has shown, it can be very problematic to rely on it entirely.

However, the fact is is that psychology has been working. It has yielded positive results and has been very practical in predicting, explaining, and controlling behaviours. The application of this is what ought to be question.

Because of the ecclectic reliance of psychology, it suffers more peer-review than any other science. It is placed under constant scrutiny not only under the contents of its hypothesis, but under judgment for the very field it ought to be placed within (ie. the meaning of this thread). However, thanks to individuals like Michel Foucault, psychology exists today as a pragmatic way to understand human behaviour via the scientific method.

What justifies psychology as a science? It is possible only if it marks a return to man's conditions of existence and to waht is most human in man, namely his history. It justifies itself as a science by treating human existence as its object of study. Human reality is not simply part of "natural objectivity". (via Foucault)
~

Well, some psychology isn't as scientifically accurate as the natural sciences. That's for sure. But certainly I don't care. It was claimed that psychology has an all to close connection with neurology and basically depends on it. I disagree on this point and believe that psychology is far more than neurology. To see them as equals would be to miss the whole point. We all see what psychological Behaviorism amounts to - total nonsense.

I'm studying Neuroscience at University, and I've always seen psychology as interesting, but not quite as concrete and believable as neuroscience. However, it's foolish to disregard it. Some aspects of psychology are reasonable and deserve to be considered.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Well, some psychology isn't as scientifically accurate as the natural sciences. That's for sure.

How is it that we do not say that about all sciences...?
~

But once again, psychology has grown a lot and now deserves a lot of credit for scientific research. But I still don't think it is as advanced as e.g. chemistry or mathematics.

Mathematics is not a science. It is a branch of logic and langauge.

Psychology is a science, since it relies on emprical evidence. Psychological theories make prediction, they are testable and can be disproven.

Saying that psychology faces the real world problem like every science. Which, is basically this Does Psychology actually describe real behavior? or does it really test how people react to expriments. However, every branch of science faces this problem. Physics for example, you could ask if your really measuring real phenomna or does your presence have a effect? something that Rodger Penrose called the Quantum paradox i.e. collaspe of the wave function.

wendylove, yes mathematics is a science. Theory of numbers? Science. Geometry? Science. Illogical numbers? Science.

Yes Mathematics might seem easy and completely logical, but you certainly think that because you haven't taken maths at college. You'd see what real mathematics is about.

I suggesting spooking into some regional math olimpics. The way you have to prove the weirdest things is not human. Mathematical science is about usign know properties to discover new ones, and then use the new properties to discover yet new ones.

I completely agree to the rest of your post.

I am noticing a trend lately in debating over semantics. Especially over whether or not math is a science.

Either way, it is considered a science in the academic world. You will not find anyone studying math under a liberal arts department. So it is categorised.

Does math alone serve to find anything? Not necessarily. Does it's applications? Yes. And I think that is where people are separating it off.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You will not find anyone studying math under a liberal arts department.

Haha xD That has just made me laugh pretty loud ^^

Ever thought of being a humourist?


-----------------

Yes, I particularly dislike debates over semantis. I think it is shows you don't really have any other argument. People don't realise that even to discuss semantics, you use semantics, so its interpretation could be completely different from what he intended. Might be hard to understand the beauty of language

wendylove, yes mathematics is a science. Theory of numbers? Science. Geometry? Science. Illogical numbers? Science.

Well, calling something a science does not make it a science. See, numbers are a invention, it is made up. You know the number line is a invention to make science work easier and geometry was invented to help ballistics.

Yes Mathematics might seem easy and completely logical, but you certainly think that because you haven't taken maths at college. You'd see what real mathematics is about.

I assure you I am not ignorant of maths. I know mathematics is not arithmatic and I know mathematics is not manipulating equations.

I suggesting spooking into some regional math olimpics. The way you have to prove the weirdest things is not human. Mathematical science is about usign know properties to discover new ones, and then use the new properties to discover yet new ones.

Mathematics is not Popper. When you have proven something it cannot be disproven, ever. That means individual no math result is falsifiable. See once you proven something it cannot be disproven, this means it is a absolute. Their is no absolutes in science. And even worse even if you get lots of evidence you cannot say it true mathematically, look a twin prime. The twin prime is believed to be true, however it is still not taken as true, even if scientifically it would be classed as true.

Either way, it is considered a science in the academic world. You will not find anyone studying math under a liberal arts department. So it is categorised.

Well, if the mathematics was applied to liberal arts then maybe it would be in that department. Again, mathematics is a langauge used in science, their fore it will be in the science area. Plus if you believe G.H. Hardy then it is a art.

A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Again, mathmatics is a language. It is logical, however it is not empirical.

Plain and simple. Science is wisdom, knowledge, understanding, experience. The most valuable thing. That includes philosophy. Religion, and psychology.

Lol Mystic not really. Science means knowledge thats is studied with the use of the scientifical method. Philosophy might actually make conclusions that are true to science, but they are different things. Religion as well. Psychology, though, follows the scientifical method, so it is considered a science (at least most of it. Parapsychology, for example, is not a science).

wendylove; I hereby name you "Semanticphiliac" - lover of semantic debate.

:p

~