ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: dcc on April 22, 2009, 12:01:24 am
-
Back in the days of year 11, I did a fair bit of research into psychology, as it was necessary to interpret the texts I was studying in literature. The thing that worried me was that there seemed to be a distinct lack of what I would call 'scientific rigour'. There were theories about how people interacted, yet I couldn't find a decent explanation for any of them.
In addition, Psychology suffers from the large amount of 'cargo cult' experiments which occur. These experiments have further reduced my views of whether Psychology should be considered a science or something else.
Is Psychology a science?
I'm going to say resoundingly, no.
-
no.
-
no.
Why?
-
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/
-
I must disagree with the opening post.
At Monash, Psychology is organised under the School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, which is a part of the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science
Evidently, Monash University recognise Psychology for what it is, a science.
Furthermore, I believe that the opening post, whose degree in Science is organised under the Faculty of Science is jealous because the fact that of the $450 Million Monash made last year, the Medical Faculty received over half of that.
-
I must disagree with the previous post.
At Monash, Psychology is also organised under the Faculty of Arts.
You can become a psychologist from a maccas arts degree.
-
I must disagree with the opening post.
At Monash, Psychology is organised under the School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, which is a part of the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science
Evidently, Monash University recognise Psychology for what it is, a science.
Furthermore, I believe that the opening post, whose degree in Science is organised under the Faculty of Science is jealous because the fact that of the $450 Million Monash made last year, the Medical Faculty received over half of that.
I also have a collection of folders, each labelled from 'mediocre' to 'awesome'. I put people into those folders, but this doesn't necessarily reflect the popular view of the people, does it? Just because Monash says that Psychology is part of medicine (which is a science), doesn't mean it is.
-
psychology is a science
-
psychology is a science
Why?
-
because it is lol
follows scientific methods of finding out about something
Psychology is a science which concerns itself with the study of behavior, both human and animal, and therefore interrelates with other disciplines such as philosophy, biology and sociology.
Psychologists therefore search for answer to the question why. From this research they develop theories of human functioning, often developing new approaches to current knowledge. From this perspective it can be seen that both normal and abnormal behavior are the psychologists domain.
The psychology of science is defined most simply as the scientific study of scientific thought or behavior.
The psychology of science applies methods and theory from psychology to the analysis of scientific thought and behavior, each of which is defined both narrowly and broadly.
read this if you want
MLA Citation:
"Is Psychology a Science?." 123HelpMe.com. 21 Apr 2009
<http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=41031>.
Is Psychology a Science?
In order to answer this question it is important to understand the
definitions of both psychology and science. The word 'psychology' comes
from the Greek 'psyche' (or soul) and 'logos' (or study), which came to be
known as the 'study of the soul'. The American Heritage Dictionary defines
psychology as:
1. the science dealing with the mind and with mental and emotional
processes
2. the science of human and animal behavior.
In its pure definition the dictionary has provided us with a clue to the
answer, it describes science as:
1. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.
2. a branch of knowledge, esp. one that systematizes facts, principles, and
methods
3. skill or technique
In order to prove this claim we have to look at whether or not psychology
can fill this definition above.
Scientific study is a valid way of coming to an understanding of life, and
can be very useful in every area of life. Science develops theories based
on what is observed. It examines each theory with rigorous and scrupulous
tests to see if it describes reality. The scientific method works well in
observing and recording physical data and in reaching conclusions which
either confirm or nullify a theory.
During the mid-19th century, scholars (although at that time probably
termed philosophers) wanted to study human nature with the aim of applying
the scientific method to observe, record, and treat human behavior that was
deemed as unnatural. They believed that if people could be studied in a
scientific manner, there would be a greater accuracy in understanding
present behavior, in predicting future behavior, and, most controversially,
in altering behavior through scientific intervention.
There are many areas of psychology, each attempting to explain behavior
from slightly different perspectives;
Social psychology is concerned with the effects of social situations on
human behavior.
Personality theorists study individual behavior.
Comparative psychologists study animal behaviors across the range of
species
Physiological psychologists are concerned with the biological basis of
behavior.
Developmental psychologists study principles and processes responsible for
change throughout life.
Cognitive psychologists investigate memory, thought, problem solving, and
the psychological aspects of learning.
Analysis of behavior studies the conditions under which a behavior can be
learned and the situations that cause that behavior to occur.
Learning is an area of psychology exploring how new behaviors are learned
and maintained.
Clinical psychologists study ways to help individuals and groups of
individuals change their behavior.
Industrial and organizational psychologists are concerned with the physical
and social aspects of people's work environments as they affect work
output.
Community psychologists use scientific methods to study and solve social
problems.
As Western describes, the psychological paradigm is a collection of
assumptions used to make sense of a subject area or experience, this can be
applied to psychology itself. Psychology lacks one unified paradigm but
has four perspectives that search for its understanding;
The pyschodynamic perspective believes that behavior is a result of
unconscious processes, personal motivation and early childhood experiences.
It's most famous advocate was Sigmund Freud. Its method of data
collection rely heavily on interpreting discussion, dreams and fantasies,
actions, case studies and a limited amount of experimentation.
The behaviorist perspective believes that behavior is learned and selected
by environmental consequences. Its method of data collection relies
heavily on experimentation conducted in the scientific laboratory where the
factors studied can be controlled; or it may take place in a real life
setting where more natural behavior is studied and far more variables
exist.
The cognitive perspective believes that behavior is a result of information
processing, storage in the brain, transformation and the retrieval of
information. The methods of data collection used are again experimentation
but with much use of computer modeling.
The evolutionary perspective believes that psychological processes echo the
evolutionary processes of natural selection. Its method of data collection
includes the deduction of explanations for behavior, and comparisons
between species and cultures. It also involves a limited amount of
experimentation.
Of these four perspectives all lend common similarities to the traditional
sciences. All have elements of controlled experimentation, as does physics
or chemistry. Cognitive perspectives use computer modeling, as does
mathematics. There are similarities, but there are also differences to any
other sciences, such as the study of dreams and fantasies.
The methods of experimentation and research in psychology is completed on a
scientific basis. Psychological experimental research would involve the
manipulation of a situation to examine the way in which the subjects of an
experiment react, in order to observe cause and effect. The experimenter
manipulates independent variables and the subjects responses would prove
the dependant variables. By measuring the subjects responses, the
experimenter can tell if the manipulation has had an effect.
Psychological hypotheses are sought to operationalise - to turn an abstract
concept into a concrete argument. This process is scientific in its
element. The hypothesis is framed, variables are operationalised
separately, a standard procedure is developed that is maintained throughout
the experiment, subjects are scientifically selected, results are tested
and conclusions drawn.
Control groups are often used, similar in essence to control chemicals used
in chemistry. These control groups are not exposed to the manipulation but
instead to neutral conditions, providing a standards to compare results.
In some cases researchers carry out blind studies where subjects are kept
unaware of the aspects of the study. Double blind studies have been used
in the past where the researchers are kept blind too.
A scientific subject knows its own limitations. Psychology attempts to
study complex phenomena in laboratory and field situations where validity
is called into question. Results contrast with differing personal
understandings of researchers which will always differ to some extent. In
a physical science a variance of error may be intolerable above 2%, in
psychology 50% may be an acceptable level.
Every psychological experiment and theory is evaluated with the same level
of criticality as that of the traditional sciences. Questions are asked
over the theoretical framework, the results validity and its relationship
with the hypothesis, the quality and range of sample and if it is
representative, the conclusions that can be drawn form the data and broader
conclusions that may be apparent. Finally the studies are questioned on
their meanings and ethics to operationalise the original hypothesis.
Psychology has adopted the scientific mode. However, from a strictly
scientific point of view, it has not been able to meet the requirements of
true science.
In attempting to evaluate the status of psychology as a scientific study,
the American Psychological Association appointed Sigmund Koch to conduct a
study, employing over eighty noted scholars in assessing the facts,
hypotheses, and methods of psychology. In 1983, the results were published
in a series entitled 'Psychology: A Study of Science'. Koch describes what
he believes to be the delusion in thinking of psychology as a science:
The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or
which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when
there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is
also a move from science to opinion.
Here it is important to make the distinction between psychology and
psychiatry. Academic psychology is a scientific project, initiated by
Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig at around 1885. His work was the
study of the average adult human mind, and the scientific method used was
introspection. His approaches have long since been abandoned, as have many
of his ideals, but not the basic idea of understanding and describing human
functioning within a scientific context.
Psychotherapy, on the other hand, is no more a science than that of civil
engineering. Ideally, scientifically investigated therapeutic techniques
and methods are used together with ethical and philosophical principles in
order to achieve a desired outcome. Psychotherapy, then, is a mixture of a
craft and an art and may not be called a science.
Psychology breeds many conflicting explanations of man and his behavior.
Psychologist Roger Mills, in his 1980 article, "Psychology Goes Insane,
Botches Role as Science," says:
"The field of psychiatry today is literally a mess. There are as many
techniques, methods and theories around as there are researchers and
therapists. I have personally seen therapists convince their clients that
all of their problems come from their mothers, the stars, their biochemical
make-up, their diet, their lifestyle and even the "karma" from their past
lives."
These opinions are describing psychotherapy and not psychology in its core.
Remembering that psychology is the scientific study of the behavior of
humans and animals, we should look at their methods of study. As we have
seen, psychologists use scientific methods in an attempt to understand and
predict behavior, to develop procedures for changing behavior, and to
evaluate treatment strategies.
Mitchell and Jolley discuss the question of whether psychology is a science
in the first chapter of their text 'Research Design Explained' (3rd
Edition). Their conclusions support the claim that psychology is a
science. They discuss the facts that psychology produces objective
evidence that can be replicated (replicated with the same success as
physics and chemistry experiments). That it unearths observable, objective
evidence that either supports or refutes existing beliefs and creates new
knowledge. And that psychology is open-minded about claims, even those
that go against common sense and sceptical about ideas that, even though
they make sense, have not been supported by any research evidence.
If we can define a science using subjective methods then Psychology is
definitely a science. Psychology represents an empirical science, its
methods demanding empirical testing of hypotheses.
-
because it is lol
follows scientific methods of finding out about something
I find out about snot by eating the stuff in my nostrils, is that scientific?
-
psychology scrutinizes a bit more than eating snot.......
-
is that article good enough for you?
-
Yes, psychology is a science; no, this does not matter.
In terms of researching psychology for lit, did you research people like Jung or Freud? These people had an early influence in psychology, but do not currently represent the discipline. I've only ever used Freud in terms of philosophical theories.
Next, did you know that psychology is responsible for finding out lots about brain function? This is done through things like brain imaging scans and other experimental testing. So, if at least this aspect of psychology is not a science, then what is it?
I think psychology is often offered in Arts degrees (as well as Science degrees and Economics degrees, I would hasten to add) because it does have a wide appeal to the students doing these degrees. But, more importantly, it has interdisciplinary implications.
For instance, behavioural economics is very important in order to understand human behaviour in markets. Why do people behave the way they do? Answers to this question can have really big implications on the economy.
Additionally, Skinner for example, he was a psychologist interested in learning (if you're doing year 12 psych you'll be familiar with his work next semester). He was also what we call a behaviouralist. He believed that all human actions arise out of other people or our environment reinforcing us to do so. So, for instance, we learned to talk because we were encouraged by our parents to say the right words, etc. It was Chomsky, in his capacity as a linguist, who was primarily responsible for refuting Skinner. He did this by showing that not only is language acquisition too fast for it to be not somehow intrinsically linked to the brain we were born in, but that there are so many combinations of words we can say but were never taught to say in conjunction because there are so many ways in which we can combine words, we could not have possibly learned them all. And now there is another branch of psychology - 'cognitive psychology' which relates behaviour (such as reading, for instance) to the stuff that goes on in your head at the time, rather than assuming that you only do that behaviour because you were continually reinforced to do so. Again, this is through brain imaging.
Also, as I mentioned before, Freud's theories as well as much of modern psychology has a baring on most arts disciplines. Philosophy, political science, sociology, anthropology, literature, etc.
Perhaps social psychology is not as scientifically rigorous, and I can see how if you only read pop psychology or about social psychology experiments, you might mistakenly think that it isn't a science. There are lots of experiments in psychology which rely on survey answers for data. Given that surveys are qualitative and even subjective, one can get the impression that it is not science. Perhaps they are technically right and I will concede that - it seems to be closer to sociology than biology in this capacity. But it is a huge mistake to say that science is completely free from bias, and I would refer to you on early studies which claimed the intellectual superiority of 'whites' over 'blacks' as an obvious example of this. Additionally, one must understand that ultimately, scientists want to find results which will give them greater funding for future research. (which is why it doesn't matter if all parts of psychology are or are not science).
As for clinical or counseling psychology - when treating mental illness, it is important to know things like causality (many mental illnesses are associated with chemicals in the brain, or environmental factors, heredity, etc.). As for the actual sitting the person on the couch and talking about their issues, there is evidence that this is effective. This evidence comes from psychology. Psychologists don't administer drugs either, but they do testing on the drugs (if a medical technician is present). They test things like hormonal levels and how they change asnd how that impacts on feelings and bahaviours, etc. The impact of drugs on individuals and talking on individuals is both useful and I can't see why it wouldn't be scientific.
In sum:
- It is difficult to completely isolate psychology from other disciplines.
- Psychology itself is a wide area of study - parts of it are more 'scientific' than others.
- You get a poor idea of what psychology actually does by reading people like Freud.
- In the end, psychology helps people and is an important discipline. If you don't want to call it a science, then you don't undermine that fact. Actually, I wouldn't mind calling it a social science or whatever, just so I could associate it more closely with Arts. But alas, having actually studied psych, I don't feel that that's realistic.
-
disclaimer: I DO BELIEVE THAT PSYCHOLOGY IS A SCIENCE.
I was arguing on the other side in the hopes of getting a decent debate going
-
It might be a science, but a lot of people who study it don't do it in a very scientific way. It can be scientific, but a lot of the time it isn't.
-
it may not seem scientific but it is by far more interesting that those other pathetic subjects in the science category
-
I went to a Psychology lecture today, and the lecture was practically Biology in all but name.
About the Psychology in Arts degrees, it's worth having a somewhat worldwide perspective. Both Oxford University and Cambridge reward all their students with BAs, whether they are majoring in a science or humanities. The London School of Economics rewards BSc for both their science and humanities grads. It is thus evident that the name of the degree is irrelevant in determining whether Psychology is a Science
-
it may not seem scientific but it is by far more interesting that those other pathetic subjects in the science category
lol, so your saying that Einstein and Newton, spent all that time on some pathetic science subject.
-
The study of psychology itself can be scientific. The problem comes when it's not conducted properly, when the psychologists don't follow the scientific rules. However, that is insufficient to say that psychology is 'not a science'. It is a huge generalisation to say, from a fairly small research, that because some people don't apply the amount of 'scientific rigour' that the entire study should be invalidated.
Whilst the claim may still be true, it should be understood that psychology [and pretty much all of life sciences and social sciences] do not have as much a reliance on axioms and logic like physics and mathematics. They, however, still follow the same scientific process, from forming a hypothesis, collecting data, reviewing data, reform a theory, start again. It is falsifiable, a theory can be chucked out of a window, better models are produced, just like any of the other 'hard sciences'.
But sometimes some psychologists [even the famous ones] skip the collecting and reviewing data part, and just likes to write a lot of theory.
-
^pretty much what I said but said a lot more smartly and explained properly
thanks mao :)
That being said, if you call psychology a science you can probably call sociology a science.
-
NO
-
it may not seem scientific but it is by far more interesting that those other pathetic subjects in the science category
lol, so your saying that Einstein and Newton, spent all that time on some pathetic science subject.
no i just believe imo that the vast majority of science subjects are as exciting as watching the grass grow, like take bio for instance who gives a flying foock about how a plant grows, it drove me insane last year hence i dropped it
-
haha yeah no one cares about plants.............
but there are much more interesting stuff with bio....... like
immunology and some of microbiology =) and some of molecular bio............
but like the plant and animal bio stuff botany and crap pfft .......... lol
-
it may not seem scientific but it is by far more interesting that those other pathetic subjects in the science category
lol, so your saying that Einstein and Newton, spent all that time on some pathetic science subject.
no i just believe imo that the vast majority of science subjects are as exciting as watching the grass grow, like take bio for instance who gives a flying foock about how a plant grows, it drove me insane last year hence i dropped it
haha yeah no one cares about plants.............
but there are much more interesting stuff with bio....... like
immunology and some of microbiology =) and some of molecular bio............
but like the plant and animal bio stuff botany and crap pfft .......... lol
WHAT???!?! EVERY PART OF BIOLOGY IS INTERESTING EXCEPT FOR... MAYBE THE PLANTS BUT THAT IS ALL.
-
^pretty much what I said but said a lot more smartly and explained properly
thanks mao :)
That being said, if you call psychology a science you can probably call sociology a science.
Yes, that is correct. In fact, anything can be science if it were done... scientifically. [Imagine that, scientific arts, where artworks follow forms which are found from empirical data to be most pleasing to see... puts a whole new spin to it]
I used to be very biased towards things not being a science [at one stage, I remember arguing that biology is not a science]. My stance has changed now, and this 'not a science' thing has become a standing joke between myself and a friend.
-
But sometimes some psychologists [even the famous ones] skip the collecting and reviewing data part, and just likes to write a lot of theory.
A lot of scientists have done that over the years. Linus Pauling won the Noble Prize for Chemistry and eventually advocated megadoses of Vitamin C for cancer treatment.
-
This will be very brief because Lost is on soon...
Yes, psychology is a science. If we're mentioning what universities classify it as, then it is in UoM's School of Behavioural Science, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences.
I think the main reason people don't classify it as a science is because they mainly know/hear about social psychology (I mean, who hasn't heard of Zimbardo's prison experiment?) and pop psychology. But we also study areas such as psychophysics, behavioural neuroscience, biological psychology (biology of the brain, really), developmental psychology (includes genetics-related study). There is also an emphasis on quantitative methods for research.
Yes, some areas are less scientific such as social, cognitive, personality, etc.
(10.59, have to go bye)
-
Yeah, I attended a couple of year 11 psychology lessons (including Zimbardo's prison experiment) and none of it was scientific at all. I mean every person is different and you can't make generalisations and call it a science. But you can do scientific research on the way the brain works and such.
-
Yeah, I attended a couple of year 11 psychology lessons (including Zimbardo's prison experiment) and none of it was scientific at all. I mean every person is different and you can't make generalisations and call it a science. But you can do scientific research on the way the brain works and such.
Procrastinating from doing my argument analysis homework.
I seem to note this, mantra about how "every person is different and you can't make generalisation" ad nauseum, without any evidence whatsoever. It is entirely possible that we may have some aspects of ourselves that are similar, whoever you are (or maybe similar to our cultural background etc.). What, exactly, are these differences? Well, we're not going to find out unless we investigate right? That's what psychology does.
Another thing wrong about that mantra is that how far do you generalise that mantra? Assuming that mantra is true, does that mean that we shouldn't investigate scientifically what makes us sick, because "every person is different". Should we not investigate how our body organs work, because after all "every person is different" and we can't "make a generalisation" about how our body organs work?
-
no.
My I first say that I love your partial derivative equation signature, but, is that a real physics equation or not? My maths isn't at that sophisticated level where you do the square of the grad function, but, it will get there!
Its a hard question to answer!
Its not that quantitative in the sense if you were to look at physics, maths, biology or chemistry.
Its a much more qualitative subject as you are trying to come up with theories about how the mind works.
I did psychology in year 10 and hated it because it was too qualitative.
With science I loved biology (apart from dissecting rats), chemistry and physics (these two are my favourite sciences - I loved the chemistry pracs and physics was just great because a lot of reasoning came from the maths involved and vice-versa (the reasoning allowed the maths involved to make sense).
-
it may not seem scientific but it is by far more interesting that those other pathetic subjects in the science category
lol, so your saying that Einstein and Newton, spent all that time on some pathetic science subject.
no i just believe imo that the vast majority of science subjects are as exciting as watching the grass grow, like take bio for instance who gives a flying foock about how a plant grows, it drove me insane last year hence i dropped it
Come on physics is an excellent science, you get to study nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, etc. All these cool fields of physics that see how weird our universe is. Chemistry is cool as with all the experiments you can do.
With biology if you scrap: botany, zoology and all those other crapy parts and look at immunology, genetics, pathology, etc. Its a great science.
-
astrophysics>everything
-
astrophysics>everything
Damm right
-
For instance, behavioural economics is very important in order to understand human behaviour in markets. Why do people behave the way they do? Answers to this question can have really big implications on the economy.
I read an article that argued behavioural economics will never have a big influence on economics because it focuses on niches and nuances in human nature that do not effect the general population (clinical psychology), and hence the general marketplace (only affects a few select people who can behave 'irrationally' for a few 'rounds' or generations). They play a small part in the economy, so they are interesting outliers, but insignificant to macroeconomic considerations.
-
For instance, behavioural economics is very important in order to understand human behaviour in markets. Why do people behave the way they do? Answers to this question can have really big implications on the economy.
I read an article that argued behavioural economics will never have a big influence on economics because it focuses on niches and nuances in human nature that do not effect the general population (clinical psychology), and hence the general marketplace (only affects a few select people who can behave 'irrationally' for a few 'rounds' or generations). They play a small part in the economy, so they are interesting outliers, but insignificant to macroeconomic considerations.
Oh right. I've never really studied it but surely there could be something general to say about the psychological motivations of the wider population? Like, usually the principles of social psychology affect the majority of people, for instance, and this could be related in some way to people buying things? I don't know.
-
Yeah, I sat in a few lectures of Behavioural Economics. I found them interesting. They're more reminders of what logical fallacies you may be tempted to make that you shouldn't, if you want to save yourself some money or make more utility-maximising decisions (better for you, essentially).
-
There's an interesting lecture on TED, from Dan Ariely who's a Behavioural Economist
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html