Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is experimental psychology science?
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 16 of 107 (252020)
10-15-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
10-15-2005 9:58 AM


Certain human behaviors are more surprising than we'd expect... but: {not as predictable, always variable, etc.}
But are you interested in predicting the specific behaviors of specific people at specific instances in time? I suppose it could be useful, say, in betting on sports events, but is it crucial theoretically? Who cares if we can predict that I respond to signal X at time Y in precisely 242ms?
Just because there is variability doesn't mean we don't "understand" a behavior, or can't characterize it.
Consider Fitt's Law.
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5724/g1/glance.html
Here's a well supported, mathematical description of human action. It's not 100% deterministic, but it's quite real.
agree there are predictable behaviors, as in "will it happen or not" some of the time; to actually question whether as a sum total, "human behavior" is as predictable as the motion of a ball seems preposterous to me.
There's variability in real life measures of the path of a ball, too. The idealized physical equations don't translate into perfect real world precision. I dare you to go out into a field, apply force to a ball, and make it behave precisely the same each and every time you apply force.
Take another simple one, one related to your husband's work: working memory span. Take digit span. How consistent are people across trials of digit span tasks? 10% variation? 20% variation?
Why is this so important? Digit spans are "7 plus or minus 2", the so-called "Magic Number" of cognition. Any theory or model of cognition must account for the mean (7) AND the variability (plus or minus 2).
Why is variability bad? It's data. It can be quantified. Variability is data, too. It tells us something about how the mind works. Any model that predicts a digit span of 7 AT ALL TIMES is wrong. It can't be an accurate model of cognition.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2005 05:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 10-15-2005 9:58 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 4:02 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 107 (252021)
10-15-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
10-15-2005 9:58 AM


quote:
Certain human behaviors are more surprising than we'd expect... but:
  • Still not as predictable as what we can measure in physics.
  • The overwhelming majority of behaviors are so variable!

  • Science is a set of procedures that attempts to come to some conclusions about the world around us. Basically, science consists of developing theories that explain the world and/or making predictions about observations that should be seen. The procedure is that one starts with a theory, one makes a prediction about what one should observe based on that theory, one then checks to see if the observations are as predicted, one then modifies or discards the theory, and then one repeats the procedure all over again. Experimental psychology follows this procedure, and so qualifies as a science by definition.
    The problem is not that human behavior is not predictable; the physical world is just as unpredictable if the system is too complicated for easy analysis; I like the example of meteorology, or of the disputes in global warming.
    Nor is the problem in that there are too many variables.
    The problem is that the idea of what makes us human is such an emotionally important issue that there is the danger that many researchers may not be able to keep their own beliefs and desires from influencing how they interpret the results (or even how they set up their experimental protocols). The example of creationists examining and doing biological sciences (or even the often acrimonious arguments over the nature of the KT extinctions among legitimate scientists 20 years ago) shows how this is a problem even in fields that are indisputably sciences.
    Added by edit:
    Speaking of the difficulty if personal biases involving the psychological sciences, let me bring people's attention again to holmes' thread concerning the political reaction against a the conclusions from a particular bit of psychological research.
    This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 15-Oct-2005 08:30 PM

    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Ben!, posted 10-15-2005 9:58 AM Ben! has not replied

      
    Zhimbo
    Member (Idle past 6012 days)
    Posts: 571
    From: New Hampshire, USA
    Joined: 07-28-2001


    Message 18 of 107 (252022)
    10-15-2005 4:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
    10-15-2005 11:22 AM


    Re: Hard and soft science
    "As for the work that experimental psychologists actually do, some of it is quite good. But psychology gets a bad reputation from its mistakes, such as some of the work on repressed memory."
    Certainly there is bad science within psychology, but repressed memory is the work of clinicians and social workers, NOT researchers. (In contrast to n-rays in physics, which was a mistake made by experimental physicists. Or cold fusion, also by experimental physicists. Why isn't Physics labeled "soft science", then?).
    Who has done the work that has debunked repressed memories? Research psychologists, Elizabeth Loftus being the most publicly vocal.
    Psychology has a bad rep primarily because everyone thinks of Dr. Phil, Freud, and Frasier. Or pop psychology like "Men are from Mars..." blah blah blah. Hardly anyone who poo-poos Psychology that I've come across seems to have even taken an intro course in the subject.
    nwr: by the way, I do realize your post was entirely reasonable. But "repressed memory" is something that Psychology - the science - has thoroughly debunked, and it irks me when people blame Psychology - the science - for the charlatanism of "counselors", many of whom have no training in psychology itself.
    ABE: For those who don't know about n-rays:
    Blondlot and N-rays - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
    I find the following quite amusing in this context:
    quote:
    "But were those who verified Blondlot's N-ray experiments stupid or incompetent? Not necessarily, since the issue isn't one of intelligence or competence, but of the psychology of perception. "
    So...to properly understand this failure within physics, you need psychology. Nice!
    This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2005 06:07 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by nwr, posted 10-15-2005 11:22 AM nwr has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 4:36 PM Zhimbo has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 19 of 107 (252024)
    10-15-2005 4:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 18 by Zhimbo
    10-15-2005 4:25 PM


    Re: Hard and soft science
    quote:
    Hardly anyone who poo-poos Psychology that I've come across seems to have even taken an intro course in the subject.
    A bit different from my experience, Dr. Zhimbo. People I know who poo-poo psychology are people who have taken an intro course, but then find out that psychology is very different than what they were expecting it to be. Most of these people are medical people who were expecting that one can completely quantify behavour and solve problems by prescribing a pill. In other words, people who are shocked that human beings aren't massless springs or frictionless pulleys.

    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 4:25 PM Zhimbo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 4:50 PM Chiroptera has not replied

      
    Zhimbo
    Member (Idle past 6012 days)
    Posts: 571
    From: New Hampshire, USA
    Joined: 07-28-2001


    Message 20 of 107 (252026)
    10-15-2005 4:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by macaroniandcheese
    10-15-2005 2:39 PM


    This kind of free-flowing hand waving is supposed to convince me that psychology isn't science?
    " but can they control their experiments? no."
    What does this mean? "Control their experiments"? Do you mean "use experimental control conditions"? What? Because for any reasonable, relevant meaning of this phrase, I assure you I can provide example of "control" in psychology.
    "if psychologist want to do science, they'll explore the way the brain works, not how people feel."
    Of course, psychologists DO explore the way the brain works. And you know what? The brain works to produce feelings. Really. Honest. You can change how people feel by affecting the brain. So why are "feelings" not amenable to scientific inquiry?
    This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2005 04:43 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 2:39 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 6:26 PM Zhimbo has replied

      
    Zhimbo
    Member (Idle past 6012 days)
    Posts: 571
    From: New Hampshire, USA
    Joined: 07-28-2001


    Message 21 of 107 (252027)
    10-15-2005 4:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by Chiroptera
    10-15-2005 4:36 PM


    Re: Hard and soft science
    There is that group of poo-poo-ers, too, although I think they're certainly a smaller group than people who just don't know what psychology is.
    "In other words, people who are shocked that human beings aren't massless springs or frictionless pulleys."
    Yes...much of what I've seen here is people talking about how "variable" or "uncertain" human behavior is. Well, duh. If you then conclude that it isn't "science", then you haven't thought very much about what science really is. Your previous post was spot on.
    This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2005 04:52 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 4:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied

      
    Zhimbo
    Member (Idle past 6012 days)
    Posts: 571
    From: New Hampshire, USA
    Joined: 07-28-2001


    Message 22 of 107 (252029)
    10-15-2005 5:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by robinrohan
    10-15-2005 2:09 PM


    Of course, the authors of that paper use the reaction time measurements to make inferences about aspects of cognition - mind. Is that paper science or pseudo-science?
    What's not physical: human motivations, feelings, ideas about morality, etc.
    So, any research that deals with motivations, feelings, or "ideas about morality" is, necessarily, pseudo-science? Is that your claim?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 2:09 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 10-16-2005 10:14 AM Zhimbo has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 23 of 107 (252032)
    10-15-2005 5:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by robinrohan
    10-15-2005 2:09 PM


    Hello, robin.
    quote:
    What's not physical: human motivations, feelings, ideas about morality, etc.
    Human motivations, feelings, and ideas about morality have effects that can be observed in the physical world (the actual behavior of the individual as well as their self-descriptions). That seems to be all that is necessary to be able to be investigated through the scientific method.

    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 2:09 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 10-16-2005 10:20 AM Chiroptera has replied

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 24 of 107 (252037)
    10-15-2005 6:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Zhimbo
    10-15-2005 4:41 PM


    what i mean by control, is specific control to a specific group of variables. psychology cannot restrict the variables.
    and no, psychologists do not analyze how the brain works. neurobiologists analyze how the brain works. most psychologists refuse to "reduce" psychological functioning to chemical and biological realities.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 4:41 PM Zhimbo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 7:07 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

      
    Zhimbo
    Member (Idle past 6012 days)
    Posts: 571
    From: New Hampshire, USA
    Joined: 07-28-2001


    Message 25 of 107 (252044)
    10-15-2005 7:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by macaroniandcheese
    10-15-2005 6:26 PM


    "psychology cannot restrict the variables. "
    Uh, yes it can? I must not understand what you mean. What are "the" variables?
    "and no, psychologists do not analyze how the brain works."
    Um, I'm a psychologist. And I most definitely analyze how the brain works.
    "most psychologists refuse to 'reduce' psychological functioning to chemical and biological realities."
    OK, you're totally in some bizarro universe here. What are you basing this on? Why is there so much reference to the brain and its function in all these psychology papers I read (and write)? Seriously, not an issue of the pan-psychology journal Psychological Science goes by without without some article (if not several) relating psychological function to the brain. That's just an example.
    I've worked in three different Psychology labs. All of them were very concerned with relating psychology to biology and chemistry. And while not all labs do biologically-based work, this hostility you claim is present in "most" psychologists I seem to miss, despite working in the field.
    This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2005 07:08 PM
    This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2005 07:11 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 6:26 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-16-2005 2:16 AM Zhimbo has replied

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 26 of 107 (252097)
    10-16-2005 2:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by Zhimbo
    10-15-2005 7:07 PM


    brava.
    i assisted my mother in studying for her psych degree. no she hasn't commenced graduate study, but there was so much anti-bio in the work they had to do which was very frustrating for her as she was dualing in molecular. perhaps your world is different but the institution she went to was strictly... fucking weird.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 7:07 PM Zhimbo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by nator, posted 10-16-2005 8:01 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
     Message 35 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 1:51 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 27 of 107 (252124)
    10-16-2005 8:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by macaroniandcheese
    10-16-2005 2:16 AM


    Did your mother's institution mostly focus upon clinical psychology as opposed to research psychology?
    ...you know, producing MD's and people who want to be therapists and counsellors (help people with their emotional problems) as opposed to peiople who want to be PhDs and do research (try to figure out how the brain works, how people learn, remember, perceive, etc.).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-16-2005 2:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-16-2005 10:56 AM nator has replied

      
    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 28 of 107 (252141)
    10-16-2005 10:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 22 by Zhimbo
    10-15-2005 5:01 PM


    Pseudo-science
    So, any research that deals with motivations, feelings, or "ideas about morality" is, necessarily, pseudo-science? Is that your claim?
    pseudo-science means a study that is not scientific but which pretends to be scientific.
    There are fields of study that are not scientific, but are nonetheless valuable, and do not pretend to be scientific. In such fields (for example, the study of history), there is less certainty about conclusions, but just because there is less certainy, this does not mean that the conclusions are not worthy or are not taken seriously, or that conclusions are not acted upon in making decisions.
    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-16-2005 09:15 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 5:01 PM Zhimbo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 12:57 PM robinrohan has replied

      
    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 29 of 107 (252143)
    10-16-2005 10:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 23 by Chiroptera
    10-15-2005 5:14 PM


    Human motivations, feelings, and ideas about morality have effects that can be observed in the physical world (the actual behavior of the individual as well as their self-descriptions). That seems to be all that is necessary to be able to be investigated through the scientific method.
    There's a problem here. Just becuase a person acts a certain way, this does not necessarily correspond to some definite inner feeling.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 5:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by nwr, posted 10-16-2005 10:33 AM robinrohan has not replied
     Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2005 1:13 PM robinrohan has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 30 of 107 (252148)
    10-16-2005 10:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
    10-16-2005 10:20 AM


    There's a problem here. Just becuase a person acts a certain way, this does not necessarily correspond to some definite inner feeling.
    Research psychologists discuss inner feelings. But their scientific reports are typically reports about behavior that is usually believed to be related to feelings. If you read the reports, they make it clear that they are reporting behavior.
    Note that verbal reports of having feelings are behaviors.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 10-16-2005 10:20 AM robinrohan has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024