Is psychology a science?

[Phyroxis]

It's a soft science. It deals with theory rather than practical implications.

Untrue. Look at the application facets of Social or Industrial/Organizational psychology. They apply psychological theory and scientific findings to the "real world" and get pretty good results.

Name a Psychological construct that has proven validity in a non-laboratory test. It's still all theory that works "some" of the time. A Hard Science would need it to work all of the time.

It's a soft science. It deals with theory rather than practical implications.

What is the rest of science?

Science in general is the ordered process of deciphering the laws of the Universe, as they pertain to us.
Hard Science like Mathematics deal with the laws themselves.
Medium Science like Chemistry deal with the laws as they pertain to us. (As they can only be proved by observation rather than logic)
Soft Science deals with pertaining to us. (As their proof can only be obtained through dividing us into those that can experience certain laws (Defined by Hard, Designated by Medium) and those that can't/won't/don't)

And if the soft sciences get upset by this, they earn a hell of a lot more.

Irrelevant.. The soft vs hard science dichotomy is a fallacy that is simply a social dick-waving concept used, usually, by members outside of the associated sciences (or students trying to prove their major is better than that of someone else) trying to establish a "dominant" science (or sciences).

Secondly, applicability of a discipline doesn't determine its validity as a science. What makes a science, simply put, is the degree to which it applies the scientific method. For the purposes of this discussion, Psychology is a science as a majority of (because there are outlier nuts in every population) the prominent, active, researchers within the discipline use the scientific method and all it entails (ie, internal/external control, reproducibility, disprovable hypotheses).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The soft vs hard science dichotomy is a fallacy that is simply a social dick-waving concept used, usually, by members outside of the associated sciences (or students trying to prove their major is better than that of someone else) trying to establish a "dominant" science.

And dick-waving falls directly under the purveyance of ...psychology. Maths doesn't have directly conflicting ego-races.

What makes a science, simply put, is the degree to which it applies the scientific method.

Psychology have to engage a tolerance on all their results from the start due to observer bias. Hardly the scientific method.

 

[Phyroxis]

The soft vs hard science dichotomy is a fallacy that is simply a social dick-waving concept used, usually, by members outside of the associated sciences (or students trying to prove their major is better than that of someone else) trying to establish a "dominant" science.

And dick-waving falls directly under the purveyance of ...psychology. Maths doesn't have directly conflicting ego-races.

Purview of study. Study and participation are two different things. I don't know of any discipline that is immune to dick-wavers. Doesn't change the status of a science.

What makes a science, simply put, is the degree to which it applies the scientific method.

Psychology have to engage a tolerance on all their results from the start due to observer bias. Hardly the scientific method.

Not true..? Well designed Psychological experiments not only marginalize but can even eliminate observer bias. Statistics is an accepted methodology and creates solid theories. No, Psychological theories can't be 100% certain every time, but that doesn't invalidate a discipline as a science. Physics can't predict the movement of quarks (it can make strong guesses), but its not disqualified as a science.

Psychology can make consistent predictions for trends and tendencies. Its not 100% accurate, but when dealing with the most complex subjects known to man (himself), you can't expect that sort of result with the methodologies currently in existence. Furthermore, dealing with humans as subjects leads me to argue that Psychology is the (if we resort to the dichotomy that you seem to be wed to) hardest of sciences.

 

[Spinozaad]

Not if you compare it to the exact (or 'natural') sciences. But it is a social science, and still follows the scientific method.

Like the other social sciences (cultural anthropology, history, sociology, and so on) you can't truly arrive at universal theories because empirical observation is impossible, and abstracted generalisation is never truly representative.

However, I'd say that they are sciences on their own terms. As they should be observed. The social sciences have given us insights into human interaction and culture that higher mathematics would never have given us, if only because mathematics do not ask such questions.

And, to conclude, I'd say you can't compare the two branches of science. Nor can you reduce the one solely to the other. You can't solely reduce sociology back to psychology. You can't solely reduce psychology to biology and so on.

 

[Glamorgan]

I'm taking a psychology class right now and at least according to that class, psychology is a SOCIAL science, so in the sense of rigidly defined exact science, no it is not, but I believe it still counts

Zaverexus is right. It is a social science. But, I think it is, yeah.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I remembered a psychological test that works all the time!!!
If you have been drinking alcohol it slows your impulses in your nervous system making you react slower to things happening around you ^^. We did this test once and it's scary how much two pints already affects you when driving a car.

tbf, that's more biochemistry because of the suppression of excitatory nerve pathway activity and increase of inhibitory nerve pathway activity due to ethanol. And even biochem. would flinch at the idea of "pints".

 

[Guffe]

I remembered a psychological test that works all the time!!!
If you have been drinking alcohol it slows your impulses in your nervous system making you react slower to things happening around you ^^. We did this test once and it's scary how much two pints already affects you when driving a car.

tbf, that's more biochemistry because of the suppression of excitatory nerve pathway activity and increase of inhibitory nerve pathway activity due to ethanol. And even biochem. would flinch at the idea of "pints".

Dang!!!
Well at least I tried ^^

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Purview of study. Study and participation are two different things. I don't know of any discipline that is immune to dick-wavers. Doesn't change the status of a science.

It does on a fundamental level. Pythagoras, Abu al-Nasawi and Isaac Newton can all agree on the fundamentals of Mathematics. Freud, Jung and Skinner can't decide whether it's sexual impulses, collective unconsciousness or biochemical reactions that are at the centre of Psychology.
Not to mention the rather unscientific methods they used.

Not true..? Well designed Psychological experiments not only marginalize but can even eliminate observer bias.

Impossible. You can get it down to statistically improbable, but the bias is still there in the computation.

Physics can't predict the movement of quarks (it can make strong guesses), but its not disqualified as a science.

Quantum Physics is as soft a hard science as they get. Observational bias directly affects Quantum, as Schroedinger states.

Psychology can make consistent predictions for trends and tendencies. Its not 100% accurate, but when dealing with the most complex subjects known to man (himself), you can't expect that sort of result with the methodologies currently in existence. Furthermore, dealing with humans as subjects leads me to argue that Psychology is the (if we resort to the dichotomy that you seem to be wed to) hardest of sciences.

Ok, if you are placing a challenge on the strength of the sciences; shall we make it a scientific challenge?
I'll derive Fermat's Last Theorem from basic principles. You can define Schizophrenia.

You can have 70 years head [] start.

The hard sciences are characterized as relying on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.

But at least you're not a sociologist. Brrrrrrr.

 

[Cypher10110]

-snipped you- Because it looked like I had said things that I hadn't.

Definitions are transient, "science" used to be much the same as philosophy.

I don't see the need to make the distinction, psychologists observe behaviour and brain function(physical and otherwise), devise laws and theories...and then test the shit out of them in order to pool data for evaluation and to use as a basis for new theories. To me that's science...an ongoing quest for understanding.

Very true, sir. I didn't intend to take anything out of context, only merely to add my take. Seems you've banged the nail on the head swiftly and concisely there

 

[Phyroxis]

Purview of study. Study and participation are two different things. I don't know of any discipline that is immune to dick-wavers. Doesn't change the status of a science.

It does on a fundamental level. Pythagoras, Abu al-Nasawi and Isaac Newton can all agree on the fundamentals of Mathematics. Freud, Jung and Skinner can't decide whether it's sexual impulses, collective unconsciousness or biochemical reactions that are at the centre of Psychology.
Not to mention the rather unscientific methods they used.

Not true..? Well designed Psychological experiments not only marginalize but can even eliminate observer bias.

Impossible. You can get it down to statistically improbable, but the bias is still there in the computation.

Physics can't predict the movement of quarks (it can make strong guesses), but its not disqualified as a science.

Quantum Physics is as soft a hard science as they get. Observational bias directly affects Quantum, as Schroedinger states.

Psychology can make consistent predictions for trends and tendencies. Its not 100% accurate, but when dealing with the most complex subjects known to man (himself), you can't expect that sort of result with the methodologies currently in existence. Furthermore, dealing with humans as subjects leads me to argue that Psychology is the (if we resort to the dichotomy that you seem to be wed to) hardest of sciences.

Ok, if you are placing a challenge on the strength of the sciences; shall we make it a scientific challenge?
I'll derive Fermat's Last Theorem from basic principles. You can define Schizophrenia.

You can have 70 years head [] start.

The hard sciences are characterized as relying on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.

But at least you're not a sociologist. Brrrrrrr.

Lest we go on forever:

On the most basic level, you are still missing the point. A science is defined as a group of individuals following the scientific method. Modern Psychologists do that, therefore it is a science. Agreement of the most popular talking heads in a field isn't required to be defined as a science. As time goes on, theories will be weeded out.

I'm not explaining schizophrenia, I don't have any allegiance DSM (nor Psychology for that matter). More importantly, the DSM is Psychiatric, ie medicine; bio (so was Freud), not Psychological. The DSM the least scientific part of the field: men sitting around VOTING on whether things should be in the book is not scientific. When more than 50% of the American population is psychiatric-ally diagnosable, something is wrong with the criteria.


And finally, perhaps to bring this debate to an amusing end. What was GLADOS doing? And before you say "bio" and assume you've got me, I want to say "companion cube."

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

On the most basic level, you are still missing the point.

Doubtful, I'm quoting people who've worked in this field for decades.

A science is defined as a group of individuals following the scientific method. Modern Psychologists do that,

But they don't.

There's no field of psychology that can even agree on the basics of Nurture vs. Nature, never mind simple hypothesis like Stress Inoculation Training.

All of psychology is built upwards from the work done by the aforementioned psychologists who didn't use the Scientific Method. Even Pythagoras and Euclid worked on that.

I'm not explaining schizophrenia,

And no-one has yet. Despite it being one of the most common mental illnesses known to Mankind, there's no set definition of it. That's what makes Psychology a "soft" science. No definitions.

What was GLADOS doing? And before you say "bio" and assume you've got me, I want to say "companion cube."

GLADos is an experiment in AI; that's Computer Studies. GLADos was practicing various methods of Psychology (as I expect you want me to say) such as Reverse Psychology, Stockholm Syndrome, Imprinting and various others.

BUT...that's because she had no other avenues of learning. She already knew all the hard sciences (as far as we can take them at this time) but she needed to understand the illogic of the human race that built her. To that point, she was actually studying Anthropology.

The scientific method states

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

While you can cover observable, experimentation and even, in some cases, measurable evidence; Psychology and Sociology can't, yet, provide empirical evidence. Because all hypotheses need to eliminate extraneous variables, which can't be done; and to be free of conjecture, which is the corner stone of Psychology.

Until we are able to specifically designate emotive responses based solely on the stimulus, Psychology will stay soft.

And morally, any such experiments that head that way tend to come under the Geneva Convention.