|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is experimental psychology science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
"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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, robin.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024