Is experimental psychology science?

guh. no. psychology is not a science. you wanna know why? take a bio class or a physics class and then take a psych class. *boggles*i'm in my master's in polisci. note the sci. they call it a science because they use 'data' and pursue it according to specifically set out principles. same with psychology. but can they control their experiments? no. it drives me crazy because i'm taking a quantitative methods class and it makes me want to hurl. when dealing with humanity (or any behaviour) you are want in providing control which is essential for a science. does this make animal behaviour a 'soft science'? sure, why not.there is simply too much room for error, too many variables, and too much room for unconscious bias in the oursuit of social studies to claim scientific standards. psychologists are just a little too in touch with their 'feelings' to accept this. the rest of us are fine with it but most still prefer to use data because it provides some grounding for those who demand it. do philosophers need proof? no, because they know that they dabble in the mind and that what they say kant be proven (haha). they know that social proof is dependant on point of view and language and blah blah blah.if a bird can't mate with a fish, that's proof, that hard, that's science. if women in america are suffering more and more from post-partum depression while women in tribal systems don't until you suggest it to them, that's not science, that's people being whiny. if psychologist want to do science, they'll explore the way the brain works, not how people feel.

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.

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.

it is possible. but you didn't have to explain the difference between clinical and research i'm an academic too, remember.and yes i suppose if that is the case it would make all the difference as clinicians tend to be more interested in a quick diagnosis ...This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-16-2005 10:57 AM

when i said they can't control their experiments i mean that they can't pick and choose all the aspects affecting the psyche of a given test subject. hard science depends on exacting standards that psychology can't deliver. i'm not saying it isn't valuable... it's just not science.i quite understand it. it's merely a difference of opinion.

meh.

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.

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

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)

it's not the data but the analysis that's different. psychology is way too subjective.the temperature of a pond can only be interpretted one way. the mass of a planet can only be interpretted one way. the acceleration as something goes hurtling through space approacting light spoeed can only be interpretted one way.a child who wets his pants can be interpretted a hundred ways. his parents could be abusing him. he could be anxious about school or friends or blah blah. he could have nightmares. he could be acting out. it could be anything. that is why it's not science. just like i was diagnosed with adhd and anxiety disorder and borderline ocd and cronic depression and a bunch of other things as a young child when it's very likely that i could just have nld. it's a very powerful study for what it is a nd what it does, but calling it a science would limit it and having it behave like a science would limit it.

i know it's silly to claim art is a science. that's why i said it. and now you're the one spouting vulgarity. and so did she. look. i don't care whether you agree with me or not but that is no reason to treat me like dirt.fuck you.

i know what causes add. i've read countless articles about it since DUH DA DUH! they told me i have it. i know bad parenting has nothing to do with it but it could have something to do with bed wetting. try reading. it's a brilliant art. my point is that although my whole family has add i no longer think it is the reason i am the way i am. it never really fit and now i know why. because this fits better.drugs make it like medicine, which is an "art" not a science... why? cause they are looking for solutions not causes. it's fundamentally different.note art is used here like craft as in a skill. the archaic meaning.

what? oh please. i've never criticized anyone in this discussion, i only asked you to leave me alone. which you have yet to do.