Is psychology a science?

[Cypher10110]

If psychology is not a science, then it would be an art, I assume.
It may or may not surprise you that both science and art are founded on method, imagination, and reason.

If you are familiar with the concepts of reason and intuition and how they are closely linked, yet very different. Perhaps you can understand what else I have to say on the matter:

Psychology is a science, science is the study of reality. Art is an expression of reality. Both use METHOD in their forms of expression. Without method, any information to be communicated becomes meaningless, and BOTH REQUIRE MEANING.

Expression is commonly attributed to art. Mathematics, philosophy, poetry, painting, language, are all methods of expression. In a way physics is an art, however the results are expressed in mathematics which does not follow the same intuitive understanding as other mediums.

An intuitive connection with the subject, an ability to understand the subject on many levels, the ability to be affected by context, these are hallmarks of art.

Definite and logical reasoning, generalisation using formulae, specifics that are variable on context, these are the hallmarks of science.

I would say, science is the methodical study of artistic reality (describing patterns). Art is the creative expression of the methodical reality (describing patterns).

 

[lokun489]

it follows the scientific method but is more of an art.

 

[lukemdizzle]

Its defined as a science, so yes. Is it as valid as the other sciences? yes. Do people know anything about, well anything? no.

It is not defined as a science it is defined as a social science. see last post

Is that just because you say so?

Sociology is social science.

Psychology is the science of mental life and functions. Some is physical, some is observational, some is absurdly theoretical(which I suspect is why people judge it, and where the snobbery eminates from).

It has plenty of merit as a science.

I could site my schools psych text book and the chapter "Is Psychology a Science" in which it explains why psych is considered a social science because it relies on subjective and observational theories as much as the scientific method

"The social sciences are the fields of academic scholarship that explore aspects of human society. "Social science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences. These include: anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, political science, international studies and, in some contexts, psychology."

You're simultaneously right and wrong. Aspects fit, but others clearly don't. You were just a little too forceful and definitive with your assertion...that's all.

as a whole psych is regarded as social science. but yes there are I think 7 branches of psych but I can't remember all of them. and yes manny fall in with the definition of traditional science better than others. for example developmental psych is much less baced on measurements and more based on observation where biological psych is more based on measurements and experiments but all branches tie into one another. there is no good answer to the question is psych a science because the answer in nether yes or no so social science is the official way of saying... sort of. so thats the best answer anyone can give

 

[oktalist]

Yes, it follows scientific method. Psychiatry, on the other hand, does not. The two are not to be confused.

 

[DarkDain]

Hm... One could walk into this thread having an answer, and then read all the posts and walk away without an answer u.u..

 

[Ophiuchus]

To quote directly from the first textbook I grabbed from my shelf:

As a natural science, psychology is concerned with the laws of nature. As a social science, psychology involves the study of the laws of the theoughts, feelings, and behaviours of humans and other organisms. Some psychologists deal more with the natural-scientific aspects of psychology. An example is the brain and its relation to behaviour. Other psychologists deal more with the social-scientific aspects of psychology. An example is how people interact in groups. Often, though, it is difficult to distinguish between the two aspects of psychology because nature interacts bidirectionally with all living organisms.

There's a bit more blah blah after that, but the point is made. So yes, psychology is a science. It's actually two different but related types of science. It works on scientific method, that alone should probably be enough to give a clue.

So far, this topic is the most useful application I've found for my psychology degree studies. That might be a bit of a concern, considering I'm just about to start my final year.

 

[FightThePower]

As someone who does Psychology as my degree course:

Yes it is. If you don't think so you are just wrong.

 

[zehydra]

to be honest, it doesn't matter if its a "science" or not. "Science" is just a label. The important questions really are, "Does it get results?", and "Are these results reliable?"

 

[mb16]

in MY eyes it is a subcategory of biology.

sociologists =is applied=> psychology =is applied=> biology =is applied=> chemistry =is applied=> physics =is applied=> maths

cookie whoever get the reference

EDIT: basically this

Spoiler

(also physics is the one true science)

 

[lukemdizzle]

Its defined as a science, so yes. Is it as valid as the other sciences? yes. Do people know anything about, well anything? no.

It is not defined as a science it is defined as a social science. see last post

social >(*SCIENCE*)<

social science doesn't mean science. The truth is this whole debate is active amongst the scientific community so there is no real answer but right now because psych relies on both the scientific method and abstract concepts that cant be measured it is regarded as social science which means kind of science but not completely. In order to be science you need to be able to measure it. there are parts of psych that are immeasurable. so it is not fully regarded science.

I am going to have to disagree. social science does not mean kind of science, but not really science. social science definitively is the branch of science that studies society, and the individuals with that society. So, as i said in the beginning Psychology is defined as a science, and so it is. Also your argument that psychology is not a science because parts of psych are immeasurable doesn't ring true seeing as how there are numerous immeasurable variables with in every branch of science for example theoretical physics.

but thats the problem with psych it doesn't fit well under social science ether but thats what it is officially labeled. my point is its an ongoing debate to which there is no clear answer. that being said psych is no less important than other sciences, but It is important to keep the definition of science strict and psych doesn't fit it exactly. Im not the right person to argue this I wish my psych teacher was hear but the best answer I have is that while psych is very scientific it is not a fully a science. which is why I said sort of science. As it stands right now you can think that psych is a science and manny do as it is an ongoing debate but in the books it is listed as a social science

 

[Distazo]

No, not yet. Having done psychology I can tell you that there are too many conflicting theories and approaches to the subject for it to be a science. When some of them are wheedled out, then maybe.

That doesn't mean it isn't a science. Most sciences like biology, astonomy, and physics have many conflicting theories at one time. Eventually one is proven valid and the debate moves elsewhere. I think it eventually will be a science personally, but like otheres have said, its a relatively new field and there is a lot to be done before we get there.

 

[FightThePower]

as a whole psych is regarded as social science. but yes there are I think 7 branches of psych but I can't remember all of them. and yes manny fall in with the definition of traditional science better than others. for example developmental psych is much less baced on measurements and more based on observation where biological psych is more based on measurements and experiments but all branches tie into one another. there is no good answer to the question is psych a science because the answer in nether yes or no so social science is the official way of saying... sort of. so thats the best answer anyone can give

It is a science. It follows the scientific method, therefore it is a science.

Whether or not it is a 'traditional' science means nothing; you have to remember that other ways of investigating phenonena aside from just laboratory experiements, such as observations in the field are still structured, we don't just observe random shit, we're methodical.

Psychology is not based on abstract concepts. It's just like any other science - you make a theory based on revelant literature/observations, you attempt to falsify it, alter the theory and keep going.

 

[Charisma]

 

[Furious Styles]

That doesn't mean it isn't a science. Most sciences like biology, astonomy, and physics have many conflicting theories at one time. Eventually one is proven valid and the debate moves elsewhere. I think it eventually will be a science personally, but like otheres have said, its a relatively new field and there is a lot to be done before we get there.

It makes it what's called a prescience, like a baby science, but not a full science yet. Basically, we're in agreement i think.

 

[bojac6]

In psychology there are numerous theories that have little to no empirical evidence, like, for example, most of the theories that aren't biological. Seriously, most of its based around conjecture and the subjective interpretation of fairly vague data. Some, such as the psychodynamic approach, have literally no support whatsoever. Which is, to my mind, unscientific.

I will admit to be largely ignorant to the details about psychology. If what you say is true, and I honestly have no reason to think otherwise, then what those people are doing is not science and you are right.

yeah, that isn't science. Not everything thought up based on the info at hand is science. the whole ancestor's thing isn't science because it wasn't based on empirical observation, it was based on conjecture as to the afterlife and the nature of stars. By your logic, religion and the supernatural would be scientific.

Frankly, I do think that the study of the supernatural can be scientific. The Coelacanth, for instance, was thought to have been extinct for millions of years (needs fact checking, not sure of the exact time frame), and people who claimed to have seen them were said to be pseudo-scientists. But, with examination and evidence, they were eventually found to still be alive.
The Loch Ness Monster is probably a better example. For awhile, there was sufficient evidence to justify expeditions to prove it's existence. The methods that ultimately proved there really wasn't anything too interesting in the lake were legitimate science. The fact that the whole thing wasn't there and turned out to be mostly hoaxes doesn't mean the legitimate studies were any less scientific.
Religion is a special case. It is deliberately not falsifiable. This makes it not a valid theory and therefore unscientific. I would argue, though, that early religion was the birth of science. It was the first attempts to explain the world and how we function in it. It was immediately after this, though, that it split into two groups. Those that wanted to adapt their ideas to new things they learned, and those that stuck to dogma and tradition.
Perhaps my examples weren't the best before, a better one might be the Sun revolving around the Earth. That is based on observation and even today it's not difficult to understand how somebody can think that. Hell, I remember when I was in first grade or so and learned that the sun was a star and I didn't believe it. To me, that's still science, however outdated or wrong it may be.
Or, to put it another way, if tomorrow we found out Newton was wrong about everything and it was just freak coincidence that his Laws have upheld until now, would every discovery, study, and area of knowledge based on his Laws, now shown to be wrong, still be scientific inquiry? I say yes.

 

[Macgyvercas]

It's a very loose science, but a science nonetheless.

I don't get it myself. I'll stick with chemistry.

 

[superstringz]

Simply put, we don't know. Give it some more time. It took almost 2000 years for people to realize that alchemy was false, and almost 200 years (after proposed) for academics to accept the helio-centric model of astronomy. There were several competing theories of evolution until quite recently (No, creationism doesn't count, so please, don't try to correct me), and even Einstien refused to accept the randomness of Quantum mechanics. Perhaps, with a more extensive record, we'll see a unified, coherent, and rigorously tested theory of psychology. Or not.

 

[high_castle]

This isn't even debatable, and I'd be surprised if any of the kids debating this in your school have ever actually taken psychology (few schools offer a comprehensive course in it, just overviews that gloss over the hard facts). If you study it in college or post-graduate, you'll find it's a much "harder" science than most people assume. It's very much concerned with the flow of information along the nervous system in addition to the fields of behavior.

I hate when people debate the validity of something they don't understand. Study it for four years and get back to me.