Is experimental psychology science?

oh lick my balls. i'm just tired of discussing it. i will not agree with you and you won't ever let it rest.

quote:

---

Whether we laben psychology "science" or "pseudoscience", it doesn't really matter to me.

---

Well, that is the purpose of this thread, is it not?

quote:

---

The REAL purpose is to point out how psychology is different than other sciences, and to show real problems in the field. Let's be intellectually honest and transparent about how things work in the field.

---

Biology is different from other sciences.Economics is different from other sciences.Theoretical Physics is different from other sciences.Each scientific field has "real problems" in the field.I really don't get why Psychology is the only field in which it's acceptable for people to casually dismiss it's very legitimacy as actual science.

quote:

---

oh lick my balls.

---

My, you ARE an academic, aren't you?

quote:

---

i'm just tired of discussing it. i will not agree with you and you won't ever let it rest.

---

Well, I think it's a shame that an "academic" such as yourself would be so unwilling to admit when she's made a mistake. Maybe that works in the humanities, I really don't know.You shot your mouth off about something you were very, very uninformed and wrong about, and now you have dug in your heels in some perverse attempt to not admit your error/pretend you are right, even though all evidence is against you.You refuse to agree with me out of pride and ego, not because you have any legitimate evidence or valid examples which in any way challenge all of the evidence against you....which is fine, although it is about as intellectually dishonest a way to debate as they come.I am by no means immune to such pitfalls, believe me, but I long ago learned to not make claims I wasn't quite sure I was on very solid ground with.Go off and feel right and be wrong, if that's what you want for yourself.

Well, when your methods are shaky... and your theoretical distinctions are based in non-science... and large contributions in your field come from philosophers and linguists...Here's a simple question: why do you think we don't have satisfactory, agreed upon answers for the following BASIC questions: do apes have language? are other animals conscious? do other animals have conceptual knowledge?It's because NONE of those questions use concepts with rigorous definitions. 90% of what we do in psychology is discover how the concepts that we've built are bunk. Conceptual knowledge? Bunk. Language? Bunk. "Human reasoning"? Bunk. "Visual percpetion?" Bunk. None of these things work in the ways our "intuition" tell us they might. None of these are wholistic things; they are commonsense words that obscure multipart, distributed, even unrelated systems.When your fundamental distinctions are made up and do more to obscure the facts than to discover them, it's good to really question what's going on. Like I said, it's not the ultimate goal for me. The important point is the path that we take in getting the answer. Labels don't mean much; it's what constitutes the label that holds the meaning.This message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/10/18 07:04 AM

Regarding point 1:The choice of p-values within neuroimaging work is a thorny issue. One must be fair here: standard statistical tools weren't made with neuroimaging data in mind! Neuroimaging data has a MASSIVE multiple-corrections problem, and involves spatially and temporally correlated data, not independent data. The field is getting a lot better, with various techniques becoming more standardized (False Discovery Rate of p<.05 rather than the standard family-wise error rate, etc.).The paper in question does not fall prey to this. There's an initial p<.01 "filtering" of the data (anything voxel weaker than this is out of consideration), then small volumes are used with full correction for multiple comparisons.2. I disagree...First, for the hypothesis testing of the paper, only the pattern of dissociation is required to support the predictions (that in one contrast IFG is significant, but ACC isn't; and that in the other contrast ACC is significant and IFG isn't). This dissociation was the key prediction.It is NOT the case that the authors...oh, fuck it...that I made a simple prediction of "no ACC", found "no ACC", and drew a conclusion. Instead, I predicted a specific overall pattern, a double dissociation, and this positive prediction was confirmed.The later conclusions that ACC is not differentially active derives not JUST from this test, but also the numerical data (fig 3b) AND, more importantly, *other reports*.If a hypothesis predicts "no difference", it's true that standard statistical tests don't exist to "confirm" this non-difference. However, this hypothesis does make a prediction. Furthermore, this prediction can be falsified (by finding a significant difference). If multiple failures to falsify the hypothesis occur, then one's confidence in the hypothesis increases.This is a thorny area, but this is not the type of thinking you classified it as. If I'm making a logical error, it's a more subtle one! What to do with predictions of "no difference" is a thorny issue, but what I outlined above - finding patterns of activation, not just a single failure, and relying on multiple replications in the literaure - is a reasonable and commonly held line of reasoning.And, finally - you are right sometimes. I have read people making very bold, innappropriate claims regarding non-significant differences. I have, I should say, seen this in biological papers, too, not just psychological papers.

I'm taking the liberty of spreading those basic questions over several lines. It depends on what you mean by "language". If "language" means what the Chomskyan school studies, then apes don't have language. And humans probably don't have language either. This depends on what you mean by "conscious". Personally, I think it quite obvious that other mammals are conscious (except when asleep, etc).Many people claim that other animals are not conscious. And then there is Julian Jaynes ("The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind") who thinks that even humans were not conscious until relatively recently. I haven't a clue as to what these people mean when they use the term "conscious". Again we have the problem of what is meant by "conceptual knowledge". I would say "yes" to this question. However, what I mean by "conceptual knowledge" is clearly different from what most people mean. Most people seem to tie it to language. The problem is more basic. A science cannot properly investigate its subject matter, unless that science controls its own definitions. Psychology is still a fledgling science. It really hasn't come fully to grips with the need to define its terminology and to control its own definitions. In some areas (I mentioned psychometrics in an earlier post) it has done this. In other areas it too readily accepts the terminology that comes from the culture.

since when does being an academic mean i can't tell someone to piss off.i don't care about being right. it's ridiculous. i just simply won't agree that psychology is a science. just because they take surveys and analyze data, great. so does polisci and that's not a science. we study how people think about things too. is it a science? fuck no. the behaviouralists claim it is, but it isn't. it's a meld of philosophy and economics and maybe psych and a little of fun rolled into a ball of dough but it is most certainly not a science. i've been part of psychological studies at a research institution. they don't control for things. they don't separate people based on cognitive skills or emotional abuse or any number of things that can mudge even the simplest responses. in bio they control to the max. when doing the mitochondrial studies, they use a single strain of yeast budded out from a single source so there's so little chance of something else affecting what they're checking. in physics they control for atmospheric pressure and temperature changes and wind and blah blah. saying psychology is a science is like saying anthropology is a science. and anthro is just a digging application of sociology and that's certainly not a science.when people do medical experiments, they control for psychology (the placebo effect) because it causes scientific error. do i need to explain the implications of this? i will at the end.fine. don't believe me. as a REAL academic. oxford lists experimental psych in the social sciences. now. i remember back when they called it social studies before people got all uppity about wanting to be scientists. at the very best, it's soft. oh sure, the dictionary describes the word science as being a study by 'observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena'. but if that were the case, art would be a science.you want the real reason i won't agree with you? i'm very elitist. now you may say... hmm why so elitist about a field you aren't in? i say. it's very important to maintain the distinctions in fields. it reduces the confusion of surety. science studies very concrete things. things that simply are. things ruled by universal laws. social 'sciences' study things about humanity. we study how people think and react and change over time. but humaity is very fluid and on top of it, we change our own perceptions and lie to ourselvesd and how we behave depends largely on how we've lied to ourselves and not how we are 'supposed' to be as governed by some unwritten law of humanity. so yes, now the placebo effect. we have the ability to change almost everything. we even have the ability to change what we see, observe, feel... it's a separate discipline because we can depend on a rock to always be a rock (until it melts) and we can depend on a blood cell to always be a blood cell (unless it becomes a cancer cell) and we can depend on gravity to always be 9.8m/s^2 (unless the earth starts spinning faster and the core is miraculously changed to something heavier) and we can depend on a cow not being able to mate with a fish (unless both evolve slowly to become something in the middle which would take a very long time and then they would not be a cow or a fish). we cannot depend on someone always thinking in a fundamental fashion, we cannot always count on someone responding like a victim. people grow and change and overpower the handicaps of their minds. wounds heal, new experiences change their makeup... we cannot think of psychology and anthropology and sociology and polisci as sciences because they are distinctly different. they study fluidity while science studies concretion.and again i say piss off.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-18-2005 10:32 AM

Exactly my point. We can't honestly investigate these things or make sense out of the data because we don't rigorously define what it is that we're investigating! It's frustrating!I just read 10 papers about "human reasoning" where reasoning was never defined, where it was clear that some papers operationalized reasoning in a way that a single-celled bacterium following a chemical gradient could be called "rational" wheras others focused on explicit, rule-based reasoning...and not only that, but the ultimate purpose of most of the papers was to argue the completely unscientific point of "are humans rational?" Since when was this part of judgment science? It all depends on what definitions you put out there, and if you're going to answer such silly questions, you're going to be stuck using the commonsense "definitions"; if you use other definitions and then try to answer that question, you're going to make invalid generalizations.Now we're studying "visual imagery", and the question of whether it's different than visual perception. What is visual imagery? Who knows. Seems to encompass a whole lot of disparate things (remembering, mental manipulations, dreaming, hallucinations, etc). Why are they bound together into a single "scientific" concept? Because the QUALATATIVE experience of these things seem similar. Where is the scientific "objectivity"? If we defined these things behaviorally, we wouldn't be constantly making the "homunculus error".But that's like saying "if we weren't human, we'd...". We are human. That's why I think psychology is more prone to error than other sciences. Because we "work from the inside." We can't get on the outside to look at things objectively. Absolutely. It's not at the same level as other sciences. The point of this thread for me is to point out exactly why that is.The one described here is that we can't get our basic concepts down, and we have trouble even recognizing it because we're "working from the inside."Ben

Zhimbo,I have to finish up work for class. Thanks for the thoughtful reply; this is the kind of discussion I'm interested in having. What are the things we can do well and what are the pitfalls?I really appreciate your honest response. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to so strongly imply that you're making improper reasoning. I was trying to describe "in general" problems I have in the field. And because schraf brought up that paper, I was trying to give examples how it would apply to the paper that schraf provided.In doing so, I think I inadvertently took a stance that I wasn't taking--that the paper itself was making some bad logical fallacies. I haven't read the paper thoroughly enough to judge it at all.So I wanted to apologize and let you know, I'm doing my best to catch up and respond to all your points. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss and your honesty. I'd rather try and discover the problem points together. I think I"ve been taking a fairly pissy tone in the thread, simply because I've felt an unwillingness of people to examine the nitty gritty and really examine what's going on. For that, I apologize as well. I don't like that feeling, and I don't like when other posters are like that. So, thanks for the approach you're taking.Gotta run.Ben

Hi, brennakimi. I'm not an academic t'all, but I'll still piss off if you tell me to...Rocks, cells, cows?How about climate, fluid dynamics in natural systems, and cosmogyny? 'Tis strange to view these as "concretion" v. fluidity, yet they are studied by the "hard" sciences.We do have the difficulty that studying human psychology is like building a fire in a wooden stove. And we do have enormous numbers of variables inaccessible to control/manipulation in an extraordinarily dynamic, complex system that functions in a similarly complex and dynamic social environment.It seems to me that the essence of science is method, and it seems arbitrary to call psychology pseudo or soft because of the exquisitely difficult and quicksilvery nature of the phenomena.Art--which is what I do, mostly--does not, as you say, "study by 'observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena'." (I assume "prediction" was subsumed in "experimental" in your dictionary definition.)An artist accepts our great amalgam of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, impusles, etc., as authentic and authoritative--nothing kills an artistic impulse faster than an attempt at rational analysis.So, I'd say--sure, psychology is hard science--maybe the hardest: I admire the scientists willing to take up the challenge.I suspect our surviving the gifts from such "elite" sciences as physics may hinge on their success with that challenge.I can appreciate that as a matter of preference one may be more attracted to more readily accessible phenomena--easier sciences, in a way.Softer, even.

---

IMHO

quote:

---

since when does being an academic mean i can't tell someone to piss off.

---

Actually, I believe you used the phrase "lick my balls".

quote:

---

i don't care about being right. it's ridiculous.

---

I don't believe you, because you are clearly wrong, yet you will not correct yourself.Sorry.

quote:

---

i just simply won't agree that psychology is a science.

---

And I say that you are ignorant of what research Psychology is and that's why you don't think it is science.You have certainly not showed any signs that you know what you are talking about with regards to anything having to do with the field other than your and your mother's anecdotal evidence.You weren't even able to answer the question about if your mom's school was mainly clinical or research.You don't know what you are talking about, yet you hold strong opinions.

quote:

---

just because they take surveys and analyze data, great. so does polisci and that's not a science. we study how people think about things too. is it a science? fuck no.

---

You continue to make broad declarations about that which you are clearly ignorant of.But maybe I'm wrong.I know. There is a link up thread to the full text of a research Psychology paper that is accessable to the layperson.Why don't you read it and come back here and explain exactly how nothing in it is scientific?

quote:

---

the behaviouralists claim it is, but it isn't.

---

What's a "behavioralist?"Do you mean a "behaviorist?" Or maybe you mean "behavioral", as in "behavioral research"?And perhaps you can provide an example of a typical behavioral research paper and explain in specific terms about why it isn't scientific.Not that you will, because you would rather spout meaningless opinions.

quote:

---

it's a meld of philosophy and economics and maybe psych and a little of fun rolled into a ball of dough but it is most certainly not a science.

---

Again, I don't know what "behavioralism" is.My husband does cognitive psychology. Is that science? Do you even know what it is? I'm sure that won't stop you from having an opinion.

quote:

---

i've been part of psychological studies at a research institution.

---

Oh, well, that makes you an expert, then.

quote:

---

they don't control for things. they don't separate people based on cognitive skills or emotional abuse or any number of things that can mudge even the simplest responses.

---

How do you know that those things can "nudge" the responses they were looking at? What do you base this opinion on? Personal opinion? "Common sense"?You are sounding more and more like Faith and Buzsaw with every sentence.

quote:

---

in bio they control to the max.

---

Not in the field they don't.Is Biology conducted in the Amazon Rainforest not real science, according to you?

quote:

---

in physics they control for atmospheric pressure and temperature changes and wind and blah blah.

---

Not in the field they don't.They can't control all wind, all friction, all other forces in the field.Psycholoy is more difficult because it is less controlled, but it field biology less scientific because it is less controlled than lab biology?

quote:

---

saying psychology is a science is like saying anthropology is a science. and anthro is just a digging application of sociology and that's certainly not a science.

---

Sorry, you are wrong.Meterology doesn't control ANY of it's variables.Is is also not a science?Predictions are made and tested in research Psychology.Theories are falsifiable.That makes it science.Just because it is more difficult to do that lab physics doesn't make it less scientific.It just makes it more variable.

quote:

---

oh sure, the dictionary describes the word science as being a study by 'observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena'. but if that were the case, art would be a science.

---

How does one "falsify" art.That is is really silly comparison.

quote:

---

you want the real reason i won't agree with you? i'm very elitist. now you may say... hmm why so elitist about a field you aren't in?

---

...and know nothing about.

quote:

---

i say. it's very important to maintain the distinctions in fields. it reduces the confusion of surety. science studies very concrete things.

---

That's bullshit.Science is all about tentativity and never being 100% sure of anything.Biology is the study of a complex and unpredictable thing called life.

quote:

---

things that simply are. things ruled by universal laws.

---

And people are not?Brains do not operate within the laws of physics and chemistry?

quote:

---

social 'sciences' study things about humanity. we study how people think and react and change over time. but humaity is very fluid and on top of it,

---

That's what people like to think.However, humans are far more predictable that people want to believe.

quote:

---

we change our own perceptions and lie to ourselvesd and how we behave depends largely on how we've lied to ourselves and not how we are 'supposed' to be as governed by some unwritten law of humanity. so yes, now the placebo effect. we have the ability to change almost everything. we even have the ability to change what we see, observe, feel... it's a separate discipline because we can depend on a rock to always be a rock (until it melts) and we can depend on a blood cell to always be a blood cell (unless it becomes a cancer cell) and we can depend on gravity to always be 9.8m/s^2 (unless the earth starts spinning faster and the core is miraculously changed to something heavier) and we can depend on a cow not being able to mate with a fish (unless both evolve slowly to become something in the middle which would take a very long time and then they would not be a cow or a fish). we cannot depend on someone always thinking in a fundamental fashion, we cannot always count on someone responding like a victim. people grow and change and overpower the handicaps of their minds. wounds heal, new experiences change their makeup... we cannot think of psychology and anthropology and sociology and polisci as sciences because they are distinctly different. they study fluidity while science studies concretion.

---

So...what does any of that have to do with the relative difficulty old and young subjects have remembering a series of random letters both with and without learning something new in between letter groups?

quote:

---

and again i say piss off.

---

and again I say, learn something about what you are attempting to criticize.

when i said concrete, i was referring to following specific laws. even electrons follow specific prediction patterns even though you can never precisely determine where they'll be...yes psych is difficult, but rightly it belongs in social studies.and i have to say that you must not be much of an artist if rational analysis isn't sexy to you... some of the most amazing art is mathematically based. not to mention much of artistic analysis follows specific rules. things are aethetically pleasing for very precise reasons. i could analyse a photograph for you to tell you exactly why it is a good one and tell you exactly what makes a bad painting bad.however. if you want psychology to be a hard science, you have to have subjects that don't know they're being studied... but noooo that's ethically wrong... blah blah blah.but still. i think it's better to keep the studies separate. you're not making psychology more believable by calling it a science, you're changing its nature and philosophy. by calling it a science, you are limiting the brain to specific, easily predicted, unchanging patterns. and i can't agree with that.

i'm not criticizing. you're getting your panties in a bunch because you assume that i think that anything that isn't science is less provable or less valuable or some other bullshit.i'm so glad your husband is in psychology. congrats. how does that affect you?you people just don't read do you?

oh yes and 'behaviouralism' is a school of political science which stresses the value of data analysis and 'scientific' methodology as opposed to traditionalists who emphasize more abstract philosophical type work (ie plato, machiavelli, etc)

" by calling it a science, you are limiting the brain to specific, easily predicted, unchanging patterns. and i can't agree with that."Since when does science deal only in easily predicted unchanging patterns? Quantum theory is all about unpredictability. Mutations are completely unpredictable, yet fundamental to evolutionary theory. Meteorologists can only speak in percentages, and are often wrong.