[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 23 KB, 316x404, psychology%20head.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2076111 No.2076111 [Reply] [Original]

hey /sci/ do you think psychology is a science ?

>> No.2076126

/sci/'s opinion is irrelevant in the matter. Research psychology is a science. If it uses the scientific method it's a science.

>> No.2076157

>>2076126
Basically this

>> No.2076183

psychology IS a science, top end universities look at psychology just as heavily as a science as biology chemistry, physics, unless they are course specific, of course

>> No.2076195

At an almost quintessential level, science is nothing more than a mental process that we utilize in an attempt to better understand our surroundings. It's a line of thought, from the initial observations to the conclusion at the end.

As long as that kind of thinking is involved in a field of study, it can be broadly and loosely described as 'science'.

>> No.2076209
File: 23 KB, 315x332, 1262667143382.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2076209

>/sci/ throws themselves at IQ tests
>/sci/ turns around and says psychology is not a science / is not real
>MFW

>> No.2076214

Even my theoretical physics professor admit psychology is a science and apply scientific methods. So no need to ask trolls for their opinion. Still it's shit tier science compare to physics, biology andchemistry tho.

>> No.2076223

>>2076214
>shit tier
Another dogma that goes around here on /sci/. There are no 'tier sciences'. All fields contribute to our understanding of the universe. Science is supposed to be a collaboration, not a competition.

>> No.2076238

So science was clubbing at 2 in the morning, wasted off his ass and bound to be late for work the next day, and he decided to prowl around the dance floor looking for a fine piece of ass to score. This one fly chick, her name was philosophy, she looked at science and thought he was one fine piece of man meat, and in no time at all she was on him, ready to ride. They went back to science's pad and smacked bodies for a good 2 hours, finally getting some shut eye as the sun began to rise, both of them slathered in the fruits of satisfaction.

By the time science woke up, philosophy was already gone. She had been drunk that night, so when she came to she was freaking the fuck out over being in someone else's house and in their bed... you know, shit that bitches bitch about. Anyway, she flew the coop. Nine months later she dropped a slimy, bleeding bastard child out of her godless, gaping whore cunt and decided to name him psychology.

>> No.2076239

>>2076223
It needs a little competition tho, otherwise everyone would just get lazy. (here, psychology at work bitches)

Keep in mind that most people that come to /sci/ have little to do with science. And everyone thinks of himself as a psychologist to a degree. They say, well that's just common knowledge. This is obviously bullshit, but it makes them think less of psychology.

>> No.2076298

>>2076238
That's a whole lot of cool story bro without saying anything with meaning.
>>2076239
>It needs a little competition tho
Well obviously, but competition is within fields and between labs. It's not like psychology competes with any other fields though. Cellular neuroscience and psychology produce new fields like cognitive neuroscience for instance. With time fields become integrated into broader fields, they don't exclude each other.

>> No.2076317

>>2076298
philosophy + science = psychology
That's all there is to it. The rest is just fluff.

>> No.2076327

It might be a science by definition, but I don't think its very useful

>> No.2076341

>>2076317
An what makes you think philisophy isn't an integral part of any other field of science? Are you suggesting it somehow makes it less empirical?

>> No.2076348

>>2076327
So trying to understand the the human mind, what makes us behave the way we do, is a useless effort?

>> No.2076355

Please /sci/ explain to me what you think psychology is.

>> No.2076359

>>2076348
I think its an evil effort. I think the reasons people do things are their own goddamn business and trying to understand them by way of social experiments proves nothing about why we do anything because in the end humans can be dishonest about anything whether intentional or not.

>> No.2076371

>>2076359
wut

>> No.2076382

>>2076359
Congratulations on your flawless demonstration of ignorance concerning psychology.

>> No.2076383

>>2076355
>If it uses the scientific method it's a science.

>> No.2076389

Please note that therapy (I presume most of you equate psychology with this) is not science and doesn't try to be science.
But this is totally different from psychology as a science, with which I mean fields like cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology, cognitive neuroscience,...

>> No.2076394

Psychology is the study of the mind. That is science.

the practice of psychology, though, is usually less about study of the mind and more about study of behavior (and even more often study of normal)

>> No.2076392

Nope, but dianetics is.

>> No.2076398

>>2076382
In order to pose a retort you have to provide a counter argument. If your knowledge of psychology is so superior why don't you explain to me the usefulness of psychology?

>> No.2076403

i liked it more when psychology was about taking cocaine and reading fairy tales. why you guys insist on being seen as scientific is completely over my head.

>> No.2076425

>>2076398
>why don't you explain to me the usefulness of psychology?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it could help us treat clinical disorders like schizophrenia, autism, post traumatic stress syndrome, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, psychopathy, ADHD, and generally contribute to our understanding of the universe by delineating the processes of subjective perception and help realize artificial intelligence?

>> No.2076433

>>2076425
I think the problem is that psychology has become (at least to most people) a social science, and the job of finding the cures/treatments to the things you mentioned as fallen to neuroscientists. not saying a psychologist can't do it, but it the word is getting "redefined"

>> No.2076437

>>2076394
well all science is the study of behavior, studying the mind however is not science because the mind cannot be objectively probed. There is only subjective access to the mind. Which is fine, because honestly understanding the "mind" isn't really necessary if you can understand behavior.

>> No.2076440

>>2076425
> treat clinical disorders like schizophrenia, autism, post traumatic stress syndrome, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, psychopathy, ADHD

You're thinking of Psychiatry there.

generally contribute to our understanding of the universe by delineating the processes of subjective perception and help realize artificial intelligence?
Philosophy and Computer Science there. but nice try.

>> No.2076448

>>2076433
I'm a neuroscientist myself. We can't do that alone, behavior falls under the wing of psychology. Neuroscience deals with a bottom up approach, neurochemical interactions to networks to whole brain function. Psychology deals with quantifying behavior. Both fields by themselves are meaningless.

>> No.2076446

>>2076425
The first part of your sentence describes Psychiatry, not Psychology.
>generally contribute to our understanding of the universe by delineating the processes of subjective perception
this is a circular argument. You still haven't explained how this would be useful.
>artificial intelligence
I don't see how this is useful.

>> No.2076457

>>2076440
>>2076446
Psychiatry is psychology + biomedical science. No description of behaver means no psychiatry. Research psychology mostly deals with investigating the healthy mind, upon which psychiatric models of mental disorders are based.

>> No.2076464

>>2076446
If you don't see why knowledge in itself is useful I have nothing more to say to you. In that case you really don't understand how science progresses.

>> No.2076513

>>2076464
>implying all knowledge is useful
I can understand how understanding processes of the brain could be useful, but I do not see how delineating processes of subjective perception is useful

>> No.2076541

>>2076513
>I can understand how understanding processes of the brain could be useful, but I do not see how delineating processes of subjective perception is useful
Because subjective perception <span class="math">is[/spoiler] a brain function. Knowing how it works in healthy humans makes a basis for treating unhealthy humans. Schizophrenia for instance is a disorder with altered subjective percepts.

>> No.2076546 [DELETED] 

>>2076513
>implying all knowledge is useful
And I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying all knowledge <span class="math">can~potentially<span class="math"> be useful.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>> No.2076555

>>2076513
>implying all knowledge is useful
And I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying all knowledge <span class="math">can~potentially[/spoiler] be useful.

>> No.2076583

>>2076541
And how can standards be set for a "healthy" human perception? For instance, I have one friend who is very socially skittish and he will never step out of his comfort zone to go to parties or peoples houses he doesn't know. On the other hand, I have a friend who is extremely outgoing...you get the point. Who's to say who is healthy? By what terms can psychology objectively define health? Mazlov's hierarchy?

>> No.2076590

It's a social science.
/thread

>> No.2076607

>>2076583
Clinical determination of pathology, now that is a problem for psychiatry. In practice psychological research is done on a representative portion of the general population. That includes extroverted and introverted individuals. If you're not diagnosed with a mental disorder that means you're healthy. Anyway, I think you know by now that understanding the human mind can be useful.