Is Psychology Science?

First off, I'll broadly construe science as the activity of creating ideas and then exposing them to observation. That is, they make certain empiricial predictions that support the idea if verified or oppose the idea if not verified.Psychology is the study of human behavior, or sometimes said to study the human psyche as manifested in human behavior. If is of my opinion that the discipline is riddled with pseudoscientific concepts and methodologies, especially clinical psychology.First off, let's talk about psychological theories. Popper famously derided Freud's ideas as being unfalsifiable. At best, they were explanatory frameworks that helped one understand there own behavior and guide their lives. At worst, the obfuscated one's self-awareness and hindered their ability to accurately assess their internal problems. The question comes down to the fact that you can't really get objective evidence when it comes to psychological analysis. There is always the "leading the witness" problem. A patient may think at the end of a session that they gained some deep insights to their behavior, and this may be true. But how does one know they aren't merely interpreting their behavior interms of some arbitrary framework? How do you assess the theories contact with reality? How do I observe the Id, Ego, or Superego? Or how do I assess whether my actions are guided by unconscious motivations that aren't immediately apparent to my conscious self?I think most of psychology, as practiced today, can be described similarly. Their is an increasing trend to label certain behavioral characteristics as disorders without accurately describing how a "normal" person should act. People constantly complain that they suffer from "depression" or "anxiety" or "ADHD". Shouldn't the inability to define "mental disorder" in a meaningful way give pause to the practitioners and open up a debate as to the efficacy of the incessant manufacturing of diseases? Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

I wrote the post kindof hastily. I have no doubt that human behavior is a valid domain of scientific inquiry, especially when grounded in neurophysiology (e.g., addictive behavior is connected with the VTA and nucleus accumbens).But what I have a problem with is the plethora of mental illnesses now being "diagnosed."

quote:

---

But there are valid issues about 1) the reliability of clinical diagnoses, and 2) whether there is a sound theoretical basis for diagnosed syndromes.

---

(1) is inexextricably linked to two. The reason there is no reliability in clinical diagnosis is because there is no one really knows what a mental disorder is. They just seem to be classifying some personality characteristics as a disorder with really no justification.In the recent DSM, there is a "sibling rivalry disorder." In previous editions "homosexuality" was considered a mental disorder. Now, I ask, what exactly changed that they decided homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder and the sibling rivalry suddenly is? What are the criteria for mental disorders as opposed to "normal" behavior?Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It would be lovely to just know what is 'wrong' with you. As Zhimbo said, you may feel uneasy about a diagnosis not grounded in fact. I agree with you, especially when it comes to uniformly medicating people without certainty. It can be disastrous to jump to conclusions, and unfortunately many have suffered at the hands of incorrect diagnostics throughout history.

---

What is wrong with me? According to therapists, I have ADHD as well as mild depression. I wouldn't consider these disorders though, merely personality characteristics that are a part of who I am.Its not just that I think that diagnosis is suspect to the vagaries associated with any medical profession- I don't think they know exactly what they are diagnosing.If they define a bunch of attributes as a disorder, then yes, I have a disorder by definition.But what is a disorder and how do you delineate normal variations in human behavior from a disorder? Again, why is homosexuality no longer a mental disorder? What startling new finding made them change there mind?

Let me see if I can jumpstart this subject by asking the more general question: what is health and what is disease?The problem with defining disease is present in biological illness as well as mental illnesses. One possible definition for disease is: Using this definition, it is somewhat clearer why we view some body states as diseased and others not. For example, childhood leukemia severely decreases the body's intended function to reproduce and pass on its genes. The same can be said of heart disease, retardation, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc.Actually, this definition is probably deficient in several respects. One case in point is "Alzheimers disease." Usually Alzheimer's sets in after the reproductive period of one's life and is this part is probably not subject to the same severity in selective pressures as earlier periods.I think this critique can be bypassed, though, when one acknowledges that we are family-oriented creatures (more so in the past, admittedly). It is in the interest of an individual not just to produce offspring, but also to aid the offspring in producing more offspring as much as they can. So Alzheimer's can still be considered to have the affect of reducing the probabilty of having your genes present in future generations.This is open to debate, though, and I'm willing to bet this definition is lacking is several respects when it comes under closer scrutiny.That said, if we accept the definition for a moment it is clear why biological diseases are on surer footing than mental diseases: its not very clear there is a "normal way" for the brain, in particular the neocortex, to operate. One of the beauties of the neocortex is that it is extremely flexible and malleable to environmental conditions, that's one of its adaptive functions. In this regard, it is very unlikely that there is a rigidly defined state of for someone's behavior. To call someone's behavior a disease, then, one would have to take on the task of showing that it is counter to some intrinsic function of the brain.This post is long enough as it is and should suffice. I would like to add, though, that maybe there is a way to define mental illness objectively in terms of the previous definition and also incorperate value-laden judgements. To be reproductively successful one should incorperate themselves in the social structure that they find themselves in. If they aren't meshing well, then there chances would seem to be diminished, atleast it seems that way to me.Any thoughts?

quote:

---

As long as they can do double blind studies and show positive results they can move forward on making such diagnosis.

---

A double blind study with regard to what exactly? The effectiveness of treatment?

quote:

---

It could be on diagnosis, with patients and volunteers filling out questionnaires and psychologists and lay people making diagnosis from the answers. If you had a strong correlation between patients and psychologist diagnosis would that not speak to the validity of the diagnosis?

---

I'm not being intentionally obtuse (its just natural) but I don't see how this would work.Patients fill out questionnaires about their behavior and thoughts. Layman and psychologists ask patient about their behaviors and thoughts and presumably get honest answers.Then what? We see who can better classify the behaviors as disorders according to descriptions given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders? How do we check who "really" got the right answers?

quote:

---

If this is your standard, then yes, there are mental diseases. Suicidal depression, for example. Paranoid schizophrenia. Heck, severe untreated obsessive-compulsive disorder is going to impede all sorts of things, and these can often (or even preferentially) strike during prime reproductive years.

---

Agreed, which is why i'm not totally adverse to the idea of mental illnesses. I just think there needs to be some conceptual check followed by some internal housekeeping; we can't have the number of mental illnesses doubling every 20 years or so.

quote:

---

While getting one "necessary and sufficient" definition of disease is going to be difficult, I think, any definition that excludes suicidal depression, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder is severely lacking.

---

Again, can't really disagree here.

quote:

---

Now, I am utterly sympathetic with the narrower point that many named "disorders" are probably undeserving of the status, especially many "personality disorders". There's a couple of reasons. One is that the field is still developing. There's great progress in understanding certain subsets of mental problems, but a murky mess at best in many more.

---

True. I see sibling rivalry disorder and laugh but I take deep depression seriously. I'm just trying to figure out a way to distinguish between the two in a meaningful way. And it doesn't seem like any progress is going to change that much if there's not a serious discussion about basal concepts.

quote:

---

I'm a cogntitive behavioural therapist myself so if you have any specific (modern) diagnostic quanderies I would be happy to go through them with you.

​

You are also getting close to confusing psychology with psychiatry.

---

I understand the Freud paragraph seemed like a bit of a strawman, but I just wanted to stress what a scientific theory isn't.Since you are obviously more informed on the subject than I, what empirical result or conceptual change resulted in homosexuality not being classified as a mental disorder and sibling rivalry being ruled as such?This is all in the spirit of friendly discussion btw, I didn't mean to offend any practicing psychologists. I'm not speaking authoritatively, just asking some questions.

quote:

---

Evidence please (taking into account my point above about Freud being bollocks).

---

Again, you may be right that I am confusing psychiatry and psychology. I was referring to repressed memories and facilitated communication when I wrote that.Can you clarify the difference? Would you say clincial psychology is the practice of classifying mental diseases and finding effective treatments for them?And psychiatry is ...?

quote:

---

Please show the 'inability to define mental disorders' or, take a look at the DSM-IV for all the diagnostic tools you could ask for.

---

Can you give me a definition as to what constitutes normal behavioral variations and to what constitutes a diseased behavioral pattern?

quote:

---

We use the DSM-IV to inform the therapy. If a client is experiencing meta worry we know there is a Generalised Anxiety Component that will respond to GAD interventions.

​

If the client has intrusive thoughts and neutralising behaviours we know there is an OCD componsent that will respond to OCD interventions.

---

I have no doubt that people experience mental patterns which debilitate their lives in several respects.The question I have is: can thought patterns be classified as diseased without reference to how it affects their lives?For instance, I've been diagnosed with ADHD. I never thought I had it, nor has it noticeably had a negative impact on my life. Sure I'm a little hyperactive but can't that just be classified as a part of my personality and not a disorder?

quote:

---

The difference is that a psychologist uses the field of psychology: a psychiatrist uses the field of medicine.

---

If they're relying on the field of medicine won't they by definition be relying on psychological research pertaining to mental health?

quote:

---

To the first yes; with qualification. We can define normal in terms of 'caselessness'. That is to say there is now clinical need in the patient.

---

Since psychologists define "clinical need" that really can't be considered an objective criteria can it? That sounds like, "You're normal if I say you're normal."

quote:

---

Remember this is not some scale that was pulled out of someones arse: this measure has been tested to death for reliability and validity.

---

I just want to know how you test a scale like that. To what do you compare it to see if its accurate?For instace, if someone has leukemia there is an associated plethora of symptons which may be associated with it. The reliability of symptons for diagnosing leukemia can then be tested by seeing how many people with those symptons actually have leukemia by using more invasive methods or by seeing the disease progress.What about your scale? Is it true by defintion that if you score higher than an 8-8 HAD do you have HAD? Or can that test give an innaccurate diagnosis? How is that determined?I think I'm having trouble distinguishing between symptons of the disease and the disease itself. If I overgeneralize, have all-or-nothing thinking, disqualify the postive, etc. are these symptons of depression or are they depression.In other words, is depression causing these thought patterns or are these thought patterns depression.

quote:

---

Care to respond?

---

Sure. I was referring to the philosophical debate started by Thomas Ssasz and particularly a section in my biomedical ethics textbook plus this website: Document Not Found where there is a long discussion about how best to define the concept. Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

Btw, thanks for engaging me on this issue. I've wanted to clarify my thinking wrt to it for a while but couldn't find someone of authority to discusss it with.

quote:

---

So you are looking at the early 70 for the DSM and the 90s (yikes) for the ICD for diagnostic change.

---

I'm reading some literature right now wrt to the conceptual changes that accompanied the DSM-III and general ideas about mental health, so hopefully I'll be able to make my post a little more informed soon.From what I read, though, it was mainly the outrage and petitioning of the homosexual community that resulted in the change. In other words, there was no major conceptual shift or empirical results that prompted it. You may say that there was never any reason to regard it as a mental disorder, which may be the case.But, to clarify the issue for me: if I wanted to propose homosexuality as a mental disorder, what criteria would have to be fulfilled?

quote:

---

I can think of no non-religious reasons.

---

That's not really what I asked. I understand there is considerable religious motivation against labeling homosexual behavior as "normal."But let's say I proposed it as a canidate for a mental disorder; I understand we are not assuming it to be as such by default. What criteria would have to be fulfilled to be considered a mental disorder? Or conversely, what criteria aren't fulfilled?

quote:

---

Do you yet have any reason to claim psychology is not a science?.

---

The title of the thread is a bit of a misnomer at this point, and was at the beginning. It should have been titled "Is There An Objective Criteria For Mental Illness?"Atleast, that is the direction I want to steer it in now. Also understand I'm not necessarily taking a hostile attitude toward the idea of mental illness. I simply want to understand it.