Is psychology a fake science?

[Siren]

@Taliesin: i don't see why you thank me, but no prob.

 

[Taliesin]

For the support and the points all lol.. I began feeling quite lonely in here already

 

[Siren]

@Taliesin: *pat pat* you're not alone.. *checks the sky and cowers*

 

[marduk1507]

Well, strictly speaking, science is something that is transferable (that is, the theories and hypotheses) into the language of mathematics or logic. Only then its statements can be labelled as true or false. I think it has to have its own notional aparatus and all its conclusions should be verified by an experiment (there are certainly more conditions, but I forgot them). I dont think psychology meets ALL these. I dont think its a science.

 

[Siren]

@marduk: well, psychology does use logic, and there's been experiments that prove some theories.
i wouldn't go as far as to say that since you can't transform it into mathematical rules or because there's many theories that haven't been proved (and btw a theory is called exactly that because it hasn't been proved), it's not a science.

and what better proof do you need than that many of its practices do have some good effect on many people?
don't forget that medicine is based a lot (and that's how it started) on experience.
unless you want to take it further and say that since medicine can't be fully transfered into mathematics' language and doesn't have all its conclusions verified by experiment, it's not a science either. so what is it?

 

[Hitori]

Well, strictly speaking, science is something that is transferable (that is, the theories and hypotheses) into the language of mathematics or logic.....I dont think psychology meets ALL these. I dont think its a science.

there is such a thing as social sciences, "Psychology studies the human mind and behavior; sociology examines human society and human relationships within it; political science studies the governing of groups and countries; communication the flow of discourse via various media; economics concerns itself with the production and allocation of wealth in society; and history the record of human societies. Social sciences diverge from the humanities in that many in the social sciences emphasise the scientific method or other rigorous standards of evidence in the study of humanity, although many also use much more qualitative methods."

i love wikipedia

 

[Taliesin]

Well, strictly speaking, science is something that is transferable (that is, the theories and hypotheses) into the language of mathematics or logic. Only then its statements can be labelled as true or false. I think it has to have its own notional aparatus and all its conclusions should be verified by an experiment (there are certainly more conditions, but I forgot them). I dont think psychology meets ALL these. I dont think its a science.

Actually, it does meet all of those. Unfortunately, you can only proove psychological theories by experiment, but nonetheless, they are valid.
As we're at it, how do you translate the truths of biology into the language of mathematics and logic?

 

[marduk1507]

@siren: well, you are wrong, a theory is a logically proven hypothesis, first you have a hypothesis and after you provide enough logical steps that make this hypothesis valid, it becomes a theory, which has yet to be proven by experiment. Thus you have theory of relativity and not hypothesis of relativity. Im not attacking anybody here, all Im trying to say that that Tals "of course psychology is a science" is a bit more complicated. Dont know about medicine - a good point.

@Taliesin: are you kidding me? Do you happen to know what is one of the most important subjects when you study biology? Natural sciences - mathematics - boing! And not unfortunately - but fortunately - that theories must be proven by experiment is actually one of the conditions for being science, so thats what psychology has no problem with. The only problem with psychology is that for it notions like "mind" are absolutely vital, but what is "mind"? Its a sort of metaphysical term. Or to put it another way - is ethics science?

 

[Taliesin]

Actually, psychology is perfectly ok with the most simple and common definition of what a mind is, because it's not relevant. You dont need to tell your patient what his mind is or how it works. You need medication and/or therapy

 

[marduk1507]

Oh, ok, whatever - you are talking about something else, and I understand you, I just dont agree with you, thats all. Im not sure whether you understand me though.

 

[rahvin]

but what is "mind"? Its a sort of metaphysical term.

for you, maybe. it is perfectly possible to deal with abstract concepts pertaining the human psyche without calling into question metaphysics. there are, in fact, completely valid notions of "mind", "conscience", "intellect", and "self" that do not require anything but science to be explained. whether you agree with them or not is another matter, but you are likewise entitled to disagree with non-spiritual, materialistic definitions of "number" and "angle", which pertain to mathematics and are therefore - in your words - to be thought of as science.

for the purposes of those who study and practice psychology, "mind" is like "number". it's not the existence of different theories, or the disagreement among scholars, or the possible refusal of older ideas (i'm referring to freud) that makes psychology anything different from any other science. demonstration, or proving something through experiments, is the basis of the scientific method. as long as a discipline accepts and applies that method, it can be considered a science. a budding science, if the proven theories about it are few and far between, but still not opinion, superstition, faith, personal taste.

 

[marduk1507]

Well put, this is what I was waiting for.

 

[Taliesin]

That's exactly what I mean, Im sure that even the more theoretical parts of psychology can do without complex definitions like the one you mentioned. The only thing that matters is whether the theory is applicable. I'll talk to my dad about it, maybe he's got interesting things to say

 

[Siren]

@siren: well, you are wrong, a theory is a logically proven hypothesis, first you have a hypothesis and after you provide enough logical steps that make this hypothesis valid, it becomes a theory, which has yet to be proven by experiment. Thus you have theory of relativity and not hypothesis of relativity. Im not attacking anybody here, all Im trying to say that that Tals "of course psychology is a science" is a bit more complicated. Dont know about medicine - a good point.

actually i'm not wrong. that's exactly what i said (or tried to say).



edit: @rahvin: well said.

 

[marduk1507]

originally posted by Siren
and btw a theory is called exactly that because it hasn't been proved

This is where youre wrong, imo.

 

[King Chaos]

Sorry, but you have no idea what psychology is or how psychologists work. This is pointless

Is it?

I couldn't read further than the 5th post.

What an insightful contribution. Why dont you stop having bites at people randomly, and unplayfully, and actually put your keyboard to use for a change.

KC sounds like a bad replica of Tom Cruise. Please, nightmare, go away.

I don't get it.

i'm very happy to see you've actually done your research and are in a position to know what professionals in this field use and don't use anymore. thanks.

What was the point in saying that? Might I ask?

Biology is studying cells and bugs and mice.

No it's not. It's the study of all life, and the intricacies of how it works, physically. You tell me I don't have my facts right? I hadn't even used facts directly to that point... your attack has mortally wounded me by now. I'm not kidding actually, you were just trying to spite me, and that's fucking sad.

we shall forgive him only if he looks half as good. without makeup.

Hello there . I believe we havn't met.

for you, maybe. it is perfectly possible to deal with abstract concepts pertaining the human psyche without calling into question metaphysics. there are, in fact, completely valid notions of "mind", "conscience", "intellect", and "self" that do not require anything but science to be explained. whether you agree with them or not is another matter, but you are likewise entitled to disagree with non-spiritual, materialistic definitions of "number" and "angle", which pertain to mathematics and are therefore - in your words - to be thought of as science.

for the purposes of those who study and practice psychology, "mind" is like "number". it's not the existence of different theories, or the disagreement among scholars, or the possible refusal of older ideas (i'm referring to freud) that makes psychology anything different from any other science. demonstration, or proving something through experiments, is the basis of the scientific method. as long as a discipline accepts and applies that method, it can be considered a science. a budding science, if the proven theories about it are few and far between, but still not opinion, superstition, faith, personal taste.

*Doesn't know what to say*
and I think at this point we need not discuss scientology anymore.

Let the bickering begin.

 

[Siren]

This is where youre wrong, imo.

well no, i'm not.
logical coherence isn't a proof. how many theories do you know that were proved wrong and consequently were abandoned? but still they kept being theories up to then.
a theory is called a theory because it's an accepted set of ideas formulated to explain something, but not yet proven or proven wrong.
when it's proven, it becomes a law.

 

[Siren]

What an insightful contribution. Why dont you stop having bites at people randomly, and unplayfully, and actually put your keyboard to use for a change.

I'm sorry that i expressed my frustration about this issue in writing, i forgot it's emo and therefore not allowed.
I think i put my keyboard to good use in my posts right after, how insightful of you to ignore it and bite back.

I don't get it.

What you were saying sounded a lot like what scientologists say.
Tom Cruise is a scientologist and his ignorant attacks on psychiatry drive me mad.
Get it now?

Btw, i'd be grateful if you could clarify whether all this thread and your views have anything to do with scientology or not.

What was the point in saying that? Might I ask?

i was being sarcastic.

No it's not.

so you're saying biologists don't study cells, bugs and mice?
i was just trying to cut it in small pieces for you to digest better, by pointing out the differences.

You tell me I don't have my facts right? I hadn't even used facts directly to that point...

What i meant was that you seem to be confused about some facts, like what each field is about, and that your knowledge about these things seems to be limited.

your attack has mortally wounded me by now. I'm not kidding actually, you were just trying to spite me, and that's fucking sad.

wtf is wrong with you? why are you getting so sensitive?
i wasn't trying to spite you, i like you as a person, but that doesn't mean i can't strongly disagree with you in an issue like this.
hug?

 

[King Chaos]

I'm sorry that i expressed my frustration about this issue in writing

You didn't express fruhstration about this issue, you expressed fruhstration about my approach (particularly) even though others had agreed with me. That's why I got wound up momentarily. Also that you started telling me I didnt know what I was talking about, when I already said, I'm not well versed in the subject of psychology.

What you were saying sounded a lot like what scientologists say.
Tom Cruise is a scientologist and his ignorant attacks on psychiatry drive me mad.
Get it now?

Oh yeah, I do. lol.

Btw, i'd be grateful if you could clarify whether all this thread and your views have anything to do with scientology or not.

No it doesn't. The vague shite I've heard about scientology makes me think some people really do need to take medicine. Or see a psychiatrist (was that one too obvious?)?

i was being sarcastic.

I know, and I didnt appreciate it, seen as though

I already said, I'm not well versed in the subject of psychology.

Which some people believe equals to me having no right discussing it... but I wasn't discussing psychology in an academic sense.

so you're saying biologists don't study cells, bugs and mice?

No I'm not. Im saying thats not all they study, and you made it sound so simple. We were discussing medicine I believe... and I think that's an issue of biology... because when you drink down antibiotics, they do stuff to you (me not being well versed showing once again?).

wtf is wrong with you?

I dont know actually. nothing too serious, but somethings changed, like for real... [/emo] (seriosuly though, no, not emo)

why are you getting so sensitive?

My first reply summed all that up. Taliesin was being pretty harsh too, towards me, not my views on the issue... In places not even offering an actual response just saying "you're wrong and uninformed". Which may have been true, but it didnt mean this topic didnt have the oppotunity to be a belter.

Of course there's no animosity .



So, to those of you who think psychology explains it all: if you saw a UFO, would you think - "Im insane!"

 

[rahvin]

So, to those of you who think psychology explains it all: if you saw a UFO, would you think - "Im insane!"

why putting together two things that have nothing to do with each other and calling it a question? aside from the fact that i doubt anyone here thinks psychology "explains it all" (all what, by the way? reality? the world? the human mind?), i doubt psychology has anything to do with theories about the existence of alien life-forms. it seems you keep deluding yourself into believing that there are two sides of some big fence, with people who explain irrational phenomena by way of psychology, and others who don't. even though i'm not versed in psychology either, i believe that it would express the prudent opinion that there is something curious about your perception if you see something that is not there. whether ufos, hydras, or mauve elephants on a bike are actually there or not, is a completely different kettle of fish. for the sake of this discussion, you should stop trying to bend concepts in a way that makes them collide just because you have a point to prove.