Is Psychology All Bunk?

I've been following a bit of a debate recently on one of the other main boards I frequent and lately there has been a bit of a debate between the board owner and another poster on the legitimacy of psychology as a proper science.While I hold the view that the majority is fairly hit and miss and pseudoscientific, there are some parts that tie with the more accurate neuroscience realm and are actually useful and somewhat testable.The old thread I question is here.Now Mike (Darth Wong) is an engineer and a staunch scientists, hence the board having a forum just for such subjects (analysing sci-fi weapons etc. requires good science knowledge ) but I'm unsure whether he really knows much on psychology given his good knowledge in debating and winning against fundies and general science inept idiots.So what says you?

I'm just curious about the way neuroscience can really explain this stuff with much better accuracy. Given the biochemical processes and general physiology of the mind being worked out, it strikes me as the successor to psychology/psychiatry simply because it's not littered with journals posting papers based on fairly arbitrary findings. Here was a follow up thread to the previous one which Mike didn't seem to respond to in the end, likely because he was busy elsewhere with family and work. You have to wonder when such integral parts of the practice are debunked does it really amount to anything at all.I still see it as a soft science much like anything that isn't the Big 3 (Biology, Chemistry & Physics) and professes to being a science. It pains me to see business science and computer science being actual subjects now.[This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-16-2003]

That's my fault, I really mean to question both fields since they're linked. Overall my qualms are with psychology since the posted link debate is attacking that, but psychiatry still seems equally vulnerable.

quote:

---

Using only neuroscience, tell me:
1. How I should study for an exam.
2. Why people believe in astrology.
3. The best way to organize an airplane cockpit.

---

Bugger.I guess that is the realm of psychology, the stuff that deals outside of exact science at least. But it still doesn't, as far as I know, hold the same merit as the Big 3 if only due to the lack of maths in it. I hear a common argument to determine the complexity and usefulness of a scientific subject is to see if calculus is used much which it is in the Big 3, though I haven't seen anything of the like in standard psychology.There's also the problem with reproducibility since one person's mind can be totally different to another and so even more blurry lines are found. The nature of the subject I suppose is what dooms it to being a lot harder to define.

Excellent, I'm getting the results I need here, no one else seems to have given the info I need to see the field for what it is. I am playing devil's advocate to get more of a feel for what psychology is like and so far this is looking better than others would have me believe.I shall mention such comments in the debate taking place at SD.net just as a neutral display that not all psychology is thrown to the wolves simply because there are more kooks in the subject than normal.Thanks for the replies, if you have any other resources that help with the arguments posted in the links, please note them here. I apologise if my posts were a bit condescending or ignorant, I couldn't think of a way to get the true psychologists arguing my points as well. [This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-17-2003][This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-17-2003]