Psychology - Is it really a science?

[Christiano]

I was having an argument with my friend who is doing psychology that psychology is a pseudoscience. I was wondering if there was a consensus that supports the theory that Psychology is a pseudoscience, if so why.

[vexx]

I was having an argument with my friend who is doing psychology that psychology is a pseudoscience. I was wondering if there was a consensus that supports the theory that Psychology is a pseudoscience, if so why.

Depends what you are studying and how... in VCE it is a science, in IB it is more of a humanities 'social science'. You can study it at uni also as either, from a more scientific view or more a humanities view. It reallllyy depends.

[Christiano]

I'm talking about psychology in relation to true sciences such as physics and biology. For example, the argument that psychology uses scientific methods to classify it as a science. Also things such as phrenology, Freud theories and neurolinguistic programming which contributes to its image as a pseudoscience. Psychology makes observations and draws unverifiable conclusions which promotes pseudoscientific thinking.

[Visionz]

Who gives a f***? I like psychology because its interesting in its own right. Parts of it can be subjective. I'd only argue that these parts are not TRULY scientific but the rest are.
I'd say the whole anti-Psychology thing is fueled by the fact that some people just cant cope without a definitive answer. They dont see the purpose in learning something that will not apply 100% of the time.

[TrueLight]

http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,2516.0.html


my answer is in here
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,13244.0.html

[ninwa]

Psychology makes observations and draws unverifiable conclusions

So do physics and maths, don't they? =\

[Eriny]

Any empirical study can only ever be 'verifiable' to the extent to which you can continue observing things empirically. Therefore, psychology falls down in the same way physics or biology or chemistry does - you can't prove things empirically.

Moreover, thinking that Freud is still the most difinitive figure in contemporary psychology is as silly as thinking Newton is the definitive figure of contemporary physics. Neither can be said to be irrelevant, as such, but certainly out-dated. If anything, Freud is more out-dated than Newton.

In my experience, people who don't think that psychology is a science often have no idea about how psychology is executed. Are brain imaging techniques unscientific? Is recording peoples responses to stimuli unscientific? These are two things that psychology does.

And lastly, why does it matter whether something is a science or not? What does that even prove?

[Mao]

Not this again...

[/0]

Psychology is most certainly a science.


Social science... on the other hand... is not.

[dekoyl]

Social science... on the other hand... is not.

B-b-b-but it's social science! Of course it's a science! D:


I think there was a massive thread a while ago discussing whether psychology is considered a science.

[TrueLight]

yeah its in my reply

[Glockmeister]

Yeah, I think we've argued this to death.

[Eriny]

Social science... on the other hand... is not.

B-b-b-but it's social science! Of course it's a science! D:

'Science' used to just mean knowledge, I think the term 'social science' is leftover from then. Also, I think social scientists used to want the authority/privilege that comes with the physical sciences. I don't think they tend to care now though.

[QuantumJG]

Psychology makes observations and draws unverifiable conclusions

So do physics and maths, don't they? =\

With physics I agree with you. In physics we usually find that what theories we already know have some limit to where it can be applied.

We had the breakdown of classical physics and going into modern physics (I.e. Physics for the very fast (special relativity) and for the very small (quantum mechanics) and then having to modify it for small objects moving very fast (quantum field theory - limited to post grad physicists).

Now we have another breakdown and to get rid of this we need to connect general relativity and quantum mechanics together. Now theoretical physicists are coming up with all kinds of theories that seem to work (string theory for example), but we can't experimentally prove them yet, but the LHC is our best shot at trying to get close to the solution of this problem. The ultimate goal for a physicist would be to connect these two.

As for maths that's different because for any theorem you develop (this is done by pure mathematicians whilst the applied guys use what's already known - am I right?) you can only say is true if there is ABSOLUTELY no counter example to show otherwise. So I personally believe no mathematician can draw a conclusion that is non-verifiable because nobody in the maths community would believe them.

[/0]

But psychology does draw verifiable conclusions - they are verified by reproducible experiments. The same goes for physics and maths.

What QuantumJG described for physics is exactly the scientific method. You start with an observation and find a theory to explain it. If you later find an error with your theory you amend your theory to explain this observation, but your theory must also be consistent with your original observations (quantum physics reducing to classical physics at larger scales).

And with maths, while axioms are loosely based on intuition and observation, then as long as they are consistent, everything derived from them will be consistent, by the nature of logic. Of course though... we must assume that logic 'works'. And how can we verify that logic works? Well, by observation.