Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Psychology All Bunk?
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 50 (73656)
12-17-2003 3:04 AM


Black-Box Science
I think Admiral Valdemar's comments are a bit reductionistic. One can have a rigorous science of psychology while treating the brain's operations as a "black box". Consider condensed-matter and gas-state physics and chemistry. This sort of subject can be treated in a very rigorous way while treating the internal workings of atoms as "black boxes". In fact, before the mid-twentieth-century, that's how they were treated. When Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the properties of some undiscovered elements, he did not know a thing about quantum chemistry. Yet he succeeded.
But from quantum chemistry, one can derive all of the aforementioned physics. One can find the sizes of atoms and the configurations and energies of chemical bonds from first principles, rather than treating them as "fudge factors" to be found experimentally.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-17-2003]

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 50 (73973)
12-18-2003 12:43 AM


I don't pretend to be very knowledgable about psychology; I was offering the example of chemistry to illustrate how one can do rigorous science without being able to probe very deeply in structure. However, being able to do such probing will only enhance one's abilities.
Also, are Freud's theories any more than a historical curiosity nowadays?

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 50 (75299)
12-27-2003 6:07 AM


Some forms of psychology, like cognitive psychology, are fairly rigorous, but others leave a lot to be desired in that respect.
I'm tempted to mention behaviorism, but that seems to me to be a purely black-box view of the mind.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-27-2003]

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 50 (76437)
01-03-2004 10:33 PM


Here's a nice article about whether psychology is a science: psychology - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
One view of psychology sees the discipline much the way Neil Postman (1992) characterizes it: psychologists are capable of saying with a straight face, and no doubt thinking that they are contributing greatly to scientific knowledge, things like: "Depression is almost always a factor in the estimated 30,000 suicides in the United States each year." ... (And other such common-sensical knowledge stated in a similar fashion)
Another view of psychologists is that they are trained at accredited institutions of higher learning, and must be well-versed in statistics and the logic of scientific experimental methods. Much of the research done by psychologists is as rigorous as that done by anyone in any of the sciences. In fact, it is probably very disconcerting to many young psych majors to discover that they are expected to think logically, understand the manipulation of variables and concepts such as p = 0.05, the necessity ofcontrol groups, the placebo effect, standards of deviation, etc. ...

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 01-05-2004 6:21 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 50 (78328)
01-14-2004 3:11 AM


To summarize the skepdic article, psychology either
States familiar things in pretentious and obfuscated language
Or
Is a rigorous science, and not social work

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024