|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Psychology All Bunk? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admiral Valdemar Inactive Junior Member |
Excellent, I'm getting the results I need here, no one else seems to have given the info I need to see the field for what it is. I am playing devil's advocate to get more of a feel for what psychology is like and so far this is looking better than others would have me believe.
I shall mention such comments in the debate taking place at SD.net just as a neutral display that not all psychology is thrown to the wolves simply because there are more kooks in the subject than normal. Thanks for the replies, if you have any other resources that help with the arguments posted in the links, please note them here. I apologise if my posts were a bit condescending or ignorant, I couldn't think of a way to get the true psychologists arguing my points as well. [This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-17-2003] [This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
I don't pretend to be very knowledgable about psychology; I was offering the example of chemistry to illustrate how one can do rigorous science without being able to probe very deeply in structure. However, being able to do such probing will only enhance one's abilities.
Also, are Freud's theories any more than a historical curiosity nowadays?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I would offer linguistics as a potential sub-field of psychology, and I don't believe that anyone would impugne lingusitics's reputation as a science...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
Some forms of psychology, like cognitive psychology, are fairly rigorous, but others leave a lot to be desired in that respect.
I'm tempted to mention behaviorism, but that seems to me to be a purely black-box view of the mind. [This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
Here's a nice article about whether psychology is a science: psychology - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
One view of psychology sees the discipline much the way Neil Postman (1992) characterizes it: psychologists are capable of saying with a straight face, and no doubt thinking that they are contributing greatly to scientific knowledge, things like: "Depression is almost always a factor in the estimated 30,000 suicides in the United States each year." ... (And other such common-sensical knowledge stated in a similar fashion)
Another view of psychologists is that they are trained at accredited institutions of higher learning, and must be well-versed in statistics and the logic of scientific experimental methods. Much of the research done by psychologists is as rigorous as that done by anyone in any of the sciences. In fact, it is probably very disconcerting to many young psych majors to discover that they are expected to think logically, understand the manipulation of variables and concepts such as p = 0.05, the necessity ofcontrol groups, the placebo effect, standards of deviation, etc. ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
One view of psychology sees the discipline much the way Neil Postman (1992) characterizes it: psychologists are capable of saying with a straight face, and no doubt thinking that they are contributing greatly to scientific knowledge, things like: "Depression is almost always a factor in the estimated 30,000 suicides in the United States each year." ... (And other such common-sensical knowledge stated in a similar fashion) This strikes me as a classical example of valuable research being demeaned because it shows something we already 'know'. Remember also that clinical depression does not mean exactly the same thing as the common usage of the word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
To summarize the skepdic article, psychology either
States familiar things in pretentious and obfuscated language Or Is a rigorous science, and not social work
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ElliPhant Inactive Member |
Perhaps this is off topic (sorry, I'm only new...) but...
I am puzzled by the tendency for people to put things into two categories "Science = useful" and "Non-science = Load of rubbish" is it possible for something to be non-scientific and still useful? To me, whether psychology/psychiatry is science or not is really irrelevant, I find it a useful and live-preserving thing for me and that's really all that matters to me. I personally don't think that Psychology SHOULD be a science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
is it possible for something to be non-scientific and still useful? Science is just another way of saying "to the best of our knowledge." I think the thing to consider here is, if conclusions of psychology aren't arrived at via the scientific method, what method are they arrived at, and is that method as good? I think psychology has been a science ever since the introduction of statistics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ElliPhant Inactive Member |
The problem being of course to accurately define "science" and "the scientific method".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Science as most of us seem to understand it, is not so much a point as a process. It is a collection of statements that can be used to explain observed facts and to make useful and accurate predictions about future observations.
At any given moment in time, the collection of statements that best describes the observations makes up the body of knowledge that we call SCIENCE. For example, for over a thousnad years, Ptolemy's veiws of the universe served well. They explained what was seen and could be used to make predictions of future events that were later verified. It was Good Science. Only later, when new obeservations were made that could not fit within the set of statements in use, was there any need to change things. That did not make Ptolemy's system BAD, only incorrect. Psychology today is similar. It is a set of statements, based on observations, that explain what is seen and can be used to make predictions about future events and observations. It is good science. There is every likelyhood, that as more is learned, as more observations are made, we will find a situation where the current set of statements will be proven insufficient and some new set of statements that more accurately explains observations will be developed. But to say that Psychology today is bunk would be tantamount to saying that Ptolemy was bunk. It wasn't. It was a well reasoned scientific system that worked well within the observations of the day. Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The problem being of course to accurately define "science" and "the scientific method". Not that hard. "Science" is that body of knowledge derived via the scientific method. What's the scientific method? Observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and reporting. Observations and experments should be repeatable or sharable. Hypotheses should be falsifiable. Psychology meets these criteria, as far as I can tell. At least it does these days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ElliPhant Inactive Member |
unfortunately if defining science and the scientific method were that easy it kind of deprives me of an area of study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
unfortunately if defining science and the scientific method were that easy Defining it is easy. It's the application that is hard. Another way to define science is "what scientists do." That's the ones the courts use, I believe. One more way to look at the scientific method would be to answer the question "assuming that there's an objective reality that we all share, what's the best way to come to an agreement about how it works?" Implicit in that question is an idea that, if a bunch of people look and see the same thing, it's probably real - or if it's not, we can't tell the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ElliPhant Inactive Member |
and I will say it again.
I'm glad things aren't that simple, if they were it would deprive me of a fascinating field of study!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024