jar writes:
Science as most of us seem to understand it, is not so much a point as a process. It is a collection of statements that can be used to explain observed facts and to make useful and accurate predictions about future observations.
At any given moment in time, the collection of statements that best describes the observations makes up the body of knowledge that we call SCIENCE. For example, for over a thousnad years, Ptolemy's veiws of the universe served well. They explained what was seen and could be used to make predictions of future events that were later verified.
It was Good Science. Only later, when new obeservations were made that could not fit within the set of statements in use, was there any need to change things. That did not make Ptolemy's system BAD, only incorrect.
Psychology today is similar. It is a set of statements, based on observations, that explain what is seen and can be used to make predictions about future events and observations. It is good science.
There is every likelyhood, that as more is learned, as more observations are made, we will find a situation where the current set of statements will be proven insufficient and some new set of statements that more accurately explains observations will be developed.
But to say that Psychology today is bunk would be tantamount to saying that Ptolemy was bunk. It wasn't. It was a well reasoned scientific system that worked well within the observations of the day.
Understanding human behavior can be a joint affort of psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists and clinical counseling. The author of this topic has long since disappeared from EvC, but his basic question attempts to ask if Psychology is a legitimate science.
crashfrog writes:
I would offer linguistics as a potential sub-field of psychology, and I don't believe that anyone would impugn linguistics reputation as a science...
Lets ask Jon about this one. How does linguistics help us to understand human behavior?
™ Version 4.2