Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is experimental psychology science?
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 1 of 2 (251876)
10-14-2005 11:04 PM


Many times on this board, people claim that human behavior is the domain of science. Yet this is done without qualification. Human behavior is certainly much less predictable than the motion of a ball or a well-controlled chemical reaction.
The question is, is experimental psychology science? If it is, how do the available methodoliges compare to those in other "hard" sciences? What are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? And what does it all mean in developing a science of how humans work?
This topic was approached in another thread. To summarize on MY terms,
robinrohan writes:
We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.
http://EvC Forum: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution? -->EvC Forum: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?
Robinrohan calls psychology "pseudo-science."
nwr writes:
I agree that there is a substantial difference between soft science and hard science. However, I disagree with what I take as Robin's conclusion. There really is some genuine science done by psychologists and by sociologists.
...
To be fair to the social scientists, their subject matter behaves far less predictably than do atoms and molecules. They really do have a harder time of it.
http://EvC Forum: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution? -->EvC Forum: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?
Nwr believes psychology is "soft science", where some genuine science is done, but somehow different than "hard science." This has something to do with the predictability of human behavior, he suggests.
schrafinator writes:
quote:
We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.
So, maybe you'd like to critique this study and explain how it is pseudo-science.
http://EvC Forum: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution? -->EvC Forum: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?
Schraf takes umbrage with robinrohan's claim, and proposes a specific article to discuss. Schraf makes no explict claim as to the "type" of science that experimental psychology is, only challenging robinrohan to show that it's pseudoscience.
As for myself... it's a lot of material to cover at once. I'd ask the admins to promote this to "Is it Science" and allow me to address the points individually.
Ben

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (251882)
10-14-2005 11:28 PM


Thread copied to the Is experimental psychology science? thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024