Is Psychology a science?

[wombifat]

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.

[mypurpleundercracka]

it may not seem scientific but it is by far more interesting that those other pathetic subjects in the science category

[Glockmeister]

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

[kurrymuncher]

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.

[Mao]

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.

[wombifat]

^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.

[methodsboy]

NO

[mypurpleundercracka]

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

[TrueLight]

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

[hard]

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.

[Mao]

^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.

[Glockmeister]

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.

[AppleThief]

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)

[wombifat]

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.

[Glockmeister]

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?