Is experimental psychology science?

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

With those formulas in hand, you must be a master.But you won't be much of an academic until you shed that youthful veneer of bombastic certainty backed up, when pressed, by resorts to vulgarity: there are very specific rules about being taken seriously by adults.Perhaps you could tell me the things you claim with the same certainty you say much else--but that would be practicing criticism, not art. All things can be rationally analyzed (productively or otherwise), but rational analysis is not the source of art. Do you think good artists believe that it is, and therefore I must be a bad one? Art history is littered with critics and their schools, each certain they could tell you exactly why some art piece is good or bad; none have had any lasting authority; all would have preferred to be artists.Photography? Please.Much great art is not aesthetically pleasing at all. OTOH, if I didn't think rational analysis was sexy, I wouldn't be here: reason has an aesthetic of its own, one that you are abusing.You suggested that art met the standards for being considered a science as well as psychology does, and my rational analysis told me that was silly, and I said so. Your rationality provided you with a totally uninformed, spiteful remark, and a digression on art criticism, by way of reply. My muse and I have studied your analysis of my art, and we can find no wounds.Now be a good lassie and go throw spitballs at schraf.

Your offer is very kind, but no thanks.BTW, what was my vulgarity? I make that error sometimes, but it is usually pretty clear (just ask Faith), and I don't think I did so in this instance. I did speak to you like an errant child with the clear intention of annoying you, but even that seemed hardly as good as I got. Guess it worked, though...It is definitely not my intention to treat you badly--for the most part I've enjoyed your posts and have thought well of you since you posted about Zatarains.

brennakimi, I just saw your post asking to be left alone.Done.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-19-2005 10:20 AM