Psychology

[Anonymouse No.2731626]

Is psychology a science? Discuss.

[Anonymous No.2731637]

No

..back off I'm a scientist

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2731639]

I know you just came from the social manipulation thread, so you fucking know it is a science.
GTFO.

[Anonymous No.2731640]

I am a doctor and what is this?

[Anonymous No.2731653]

As a "top tier" fag who's actually does active and publishable research (contrary to 99% of /sci/ posters), yes psychology is a science but just barely.

Here's something for you kiddies, if something uses the scientific method, it's science.

[Anonymous No.2731661]

There is no reason why psychology CAN'T be a science. It's the investigation of a series of empirical phenomena through the scientific method.

... they're just mostly shit at it and hippie pussies.

[Anonymous No.2731664]

>>2731653
Post publishings

[Anonymous No.2731676]

>>2731653
>if something uses the scientific method
ah yes, there's your problem. see the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

[Anonymous No.2731690]

>>2731626
Not social psychology or counseling psychology.

But neuropsychology which uses empirical data is true science.

[Anonymous No.2731695]

>>2731676

>Problem with the way psychologists act
>Problem with psychology in principle

Two different things

>Aristotle's physics was unscientific
>Physics is unscientific

Two different things.

[Anonymouse No.2731698]

OP here, I think psychology IS a pseudoscience btw.

[Anonymous No.2731699]

Just as much as wanting to fuck your mom is

[Anonymous No.2731703]

>>2731690
>Neuropsychology
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh god thank you that was indeed a good one

[Anonymous No.2731738]

>>2731703
fag, I bet you think math is science

[Anonymous No.2731743]

name one law or force or anything that psychology discovered

[Anonymous No.2731749]

>>2731743
how about cognitive dissonance?

[Anonymous No.2731755]

>>2731695
I never talked about "acting" like anything. As Richard puts it: they don't derive any laws. For me a key feature of the scientific method was to find/derive laws, otherwise it's useless. And that's exactly what psychology is. Now you might say finding laws ain't necessarily a part of the scientific method but then you're just including useless things into the list of sciences. Which is something I rather not do. Philosophy for example uses (sometimes) rigorous logical thinking but its conclusions are always useless since finding laws is not a goal of philosophy. That's why philosophy is a pseudoscience as well for me.

[Anonymous No.2731762]

>>2731743
>psychology discovered

that Freud was a psychopath.

[Anonymous No.2731764]

>>2731738
I am a doctor of medicine i do not think what i do is science. So please give it a rest.

[Anonymous No.2731777]

>>2731755

>I never talked about "acting" like anything.

It was implicit in what Feynman was saying. Just because psychologists fail to correctly apply the scientific method and draw useful, falsifiable conclusions does not mean that psychology itself (in abstract potential) is not a science.

>but its conclusions are always useless since finding laws is not a goal of philosophy.

I'll point you to the work of Karl Popper. Enjoy your falsifiability? Credit where it's due.

>That's why philosophy is a pseudoscience as well for me.

How can something be a pseudoscience when it does not attempt to be a science? Is mathematics a pseudoscience?

[Anonymouse No.2731779]

Is cognitive dissonance really a law though?

[Anonymous No.2731781]

>>2731703
>>2731703
>>2731703
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology

Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.2731794]

>>2731703
You don't think Neuropsychology is science?
You'd have to be really dense...

[Anonymous No.2731795]

>>2731781 -- > >>2731764

[Anonymous No.2731797]

it's a science, a shit tier science but still

[Anonymous No.2731800]

>>2731764
>I am a doctor of medicine

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh god thank you that was indeed a good one

[Anonymous No.2731804]

>studying effectiveness of a new therapy
>grab an experimental group and a control group
>run current therapy with control, new one with experimental
>compare effectiveness, run statistical analysis

Oh hey look, I just did science.

[Anonymous No.2731810]

>>2731800
enjoying it? am glad

[Anonymous No.2731812]

/sci/ - trolls and aspies

[Anonymous No.2731818]

>>2731812
We have medical doctors in this thread man, don't hate.
Medical doctors who have the time to browse 4chan and debate about whether psychology is a science or not.

[Anonymouse No.2731820]

Freud was a bit messed up too....

[Anonymous No.2731835]

>>2731818
We all have to take a break don't we?
Why ARE you guys hating so much?

Math is not science, psychology is not science, medicine is not science, some parts of biology might be and chem along with physics are.
I don't get what the big deal with sciences is. Everything is needed in this world. I work with the psychologists sometimes in the clinic and they know know more about some neuro diseases than i do. I wasn't disrespecting psychology.

[Anonymous No.2731841]

>>2731835
>I work with the psychologists sometimes in the clinic
Of course, you do.

[Anonymous No.2731846]

>>2731777
>does not mean that psychology itself (in abstract potential) is not a science
We're not talking about the "abstract potential" of psychology here, but explicitly about what it IS today. And as of yet, it's not science in my book.
>I'll point you to the work of Karl Popper.
Point me to a law he discovered and sources. I'm definitely not going to look for his particular achievements myself and you're the one who's trying to convince me.
>How can something be a pseudoscience when it does not attempt to be a science?
OP's implicit assumption was that philosophy claims to be a science. In that light I came to argue why I think that it then fails and ends up being a pseudoscience. You're basically dismissing this whole thread and discussion with the above statement. But, if philosophy indeed doesn't claim to be a science then all is well of course.

[Anonymous No.2731849]

Yes. You're studying a field where you can make models and take statistics. You're learning about behavior.

It's like biology about humans. Only without the non-brain stuff. Taking a scientific field and focusing on studying one facet of it actually tends to create MORE scientific disciplines.

[Anonymous No.2731861]

>>2731841
>are you really that insecure?

[Anonymous No.2731864]

>>2731861
No, I'm just glad that we have a doctor in our midst imparting his valuable knowledge.

[Anonymouse No.2731873]

>>2731864

I smell a troll....

[Anonymous No.2731875]

>>2731864
Alright, much appreciated.

[Anonymous No.2731898]

>>2731846

You're not too hot on reading comprehension, are you?

There is a distinction between the abstract potential of a subject area and the reality of the quality of the research currently being done in that area. As I said earlier, was Aristotle's pseudoscientific physics a sign that a scientific physics was impossible? No. It invalidates HIM, not the subject.

>Point me to a law he discovered and sources.

He never attempted to discover laws. Just because something is not a law does not mean it is worthless or not a form of knowledge. Karl Popper is the reason that the scientific method is what it is today. He is in large part the reason that scientists make use of the principle of falsification which has stimulated so much of modern scientific development. Is that a law? No. The scientific method is not a law. Does that invalidate it?

>OP's implicit assumption was that philosophy claims to be a science.

The OP never mentioned philosophy. You mentioned philosophy and only you.

>But, if philosophy indeed doesn't claim to be a science then all is well of course.

The only sense in which philosophy claims to be a science is in the traditional definition of the term, i.e. the systematic attempt to acquire new knowledge, which is the ancient distinction betweens arts and sciences and would make it a non-natural science, like mathematics by the ancient definition.
It does not claim to be a natural science.

[Anonymous No.2731919]

>ITT: Kids with insecurity/dominance issue, small minds and big dreams

[Anonymous No.2731981]

>>2731898
>You're not too hot on reading comprehension, are you?
Subtle ad hominem? Why am I even replying...
First, replace philosophy with psychology in the last two quotes, my mistake. Second, all I'm saying is: no laws no science (for me at least). You're implying I said it was a bad thing to have no laws, seems to me you're the one lacking in reading comprehension (and yes, this is a subtle ad hominem). Also to be honest it was much more people like Kolmogorov that are responsible for today's scientific standards (e.g. axiomatization of probability theory), i.e. people who by actually doing what I refer to as science and applying the modern scientific method.
Also mathematics is a science for me because it finds laws which are applicable (greatly so) to the world around us. I just don't call it a natural science because it is not based on empirical data. So just to recap: neither psychology nor philosophy satisfy in my eyes the properties listed above of either mathematics or natural sciences and thus I don't call them a science.

[Anonymous No.2732055]

>>2731981

>Subtle ad hominem? Why am I even replying...

You also don't know what an ad hominem is, do you? I wasn't using it as a means of invalidating your argument, therefore it can't be a logical fallacy and therefore it's not an ad hominem.

An insult is not an ad hominem.

>First, replace philosophy with psychology in the last two quotes, my mistake.

If I did that, they would make no sense whatsoever.

>no laws no science (for me at least).

No laws is only necessarily a failure of the scientists involved in the past and the present, not an invalidation of the subject. The subject would be invalidated as a potential science if and only if laws were not theoretically POSSIBLE. It's a fairly clear distinction.

>You're implying I said it was a bad thing to have no laws

You said this:

>Point me to a law (Karl Popper) discovered and sources.

The implication being that if laws (and therefore science) is not discovered, then nothing of worth has been discovered.

>seems to me you're the one lacking in reading comprehension

No, that's still you.

>Also to be honest it was much more people like Kolmogorov (...)

Falsification is a vitally important part of the formulation of hypotheses. He did that. Philosophy did that. It's a contribution and therefore directly invalidates what you said here:
>but its conclusions are always useless
That's what's important.

[Anonymous No.2732063]

>>2732055

Cont.

>Also mathematics is a science for me

It is not, nor does it attempt to be, a science as is traditionally understood. It makes no predictions of the natural world whatsoever. You can invent definitions of the term if you like, but it doesn't get anybody very far. Don't equivocate on the word 'science', because it can be made to include anything.

Again, philosophy does not attempt to be a science. It is a rigorous, analytic approach to the answering of questions at the most general level of investigation (paraphrased definition by Quine). That isn't and cannot be a science, and so it cannot be a pseudo-science.

Psychology has failed to produce scientific research, and yet, as a research field, it is a science. It is (as far as we can tell) the investigation of empirical phenomena and can therefore be expressed with the same scientific rigour as any other area of the natural world.

[Anonymous No.2734043]

NO!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2734077]

Psychology is an underdeveloped science that invites trolls into its ranks. None-the-less, psychology is a science and will probably be very important as it continues to refine itself with the help of neurology.

[Anonymous No.2734109]

Using the definition from dictionary.com

sci·ence   
[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Definition 1 and 2 invalidate psychology as a science; It is hard to create a body of facts and truths regarding the mind considering the mind is subjective. The mind is also not part of the physical or material world.

Definition 3 is a bit iffy; it depends on whether you consider psychology to be "natural".

Definition 4, 5, 6 and 7 validate that psychology is a science; Psychology is knowledge of the mind and inter-relationships of the mind. This knowledge is systemized with theories and observations.

[SAGE No.2734123]

>>2734109
>TROLL BUMP

SERIOUSLY, START A RELIGION THREAD OR SOMETHING

[Anonymous No.2734124]

>>2734077

This.

As understanding of the brain/mind/consciousness grows, several fields will likely merge into one larger branch of science.

Much like early math, physics, and chemistry.

[sage No.2734133]

>>2734124
>>2734109
>>2734077
>>2734043
samefag troll

[Anonymous No.2734134]

>>2734123

the fuck you talkin' bout child?