Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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?
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

      
    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

      
    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

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 34 of 107 (252184)
    10-16-2005 1:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
    10-16-2005 10:20 AM


    Thanks for responding, robin.
    I guess I don't see the problem. Psychologists make observations in the real world, like the behavior of a person, her answers to some sort of questionaire, her descriptions of how she feels or her interpretations of her actions, and so forth. From these observations theoried about human behavior and human emotions are made. From these theories one can, presumably, make predictions about further observations that should be made. If these observations are actually made, the theory is considered verified. If these observations are not made, then the psychologist must either find an explanation for why the observation was not made or must modify or discard the theory.
    This is all that the "scientific method" demands. Do you disagree that this is the procedure used by experimental psychologists? If not, then why is the procedure not sufficient to render psychology as a science?

    "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 29 by robinrohan, posted 10-16-2005 10:20 AM robinrohan has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 5:06 PM Chiroptera has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 41 of 107 (252220)
    10-16-2005 4:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
    10-16-2005 4:02 PM


    quote:
    Fitt's law isn't very interesting to me because it doesn't explain behavior; it just describes it.
    Newton's Laws does not explain motion, they only describe it. Yet, it would appear that few people would dispute that Newton's Laws are good science.

    "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 40 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 4:02 PM Ben! has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 42 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 4:07 PM Chiroptera has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 43 of 107 (252223)
    10-16-2005 4:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 42 by Ben!
    10-16-2005 4:07 PM


    First things first. In order to explain behavior, you have to how people behave. Fitt's law gives us an example of behavior that is to be explained. You cannot explain behavior (scientifically) until you know how people actually do behave.

    "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 42 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 4:07 PM Ben! has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 4:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 45 of 107 (252231)
    10-16-2005 4:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 44 by Ben!
    10-16-2005 4:27 PM


    quote:
    The only point I wanted to make is that Fitt's law doesn't address things at the level that I'm questioning of whether it's science.
    It's possible that I don't understand what you are asking. I think your question is whether psychology can be considered a science. If you wish, you can reply to a question that I asked robinrohan.

    "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 44 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 4:27 PM Ben! has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 48 of 107 (252260)
    10-16-2005 7:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Ben!
    10-16-2005 5:06 PM


    quote:
    You can collect data, but how do you relate different sets of data? You have to have an underlying abstraction or model that tells you whether one data set can be related to another; what is that model here?
    Yes, part of being a science is that you have to have a theory/model to test. In fact, you can't even productively collect data without a theory since you need a theory to organize your investigation, to give you an idea of what is the important things that you are looking for.
    If I am reading your post you are claiming that there are no true theories in psychology, that data is being collected without any organized program, that data is not being used to test various models. Am I accurate here?

    "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 46 by Ben!, posted 10-16-2005 5:06 PM Ben! 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