it looks like many people are defining psychology by subject matter, which according to scholars is not even considered as part science methods. I work with doctors who are fantastic at what they do, but 'scientifically' they know nothing about the method other than repeated observations is good i.e. overly inductive. Psychology is deductive, which suits it's subject matter because they have good guesses (theories) and attempt to falisfy them and refine; theories change in all sciences.
it looks like many people are defining psychology by subject matter, which according to scholars is not even considered as part science methods. I work with doctors who are fantastic at what they do, but 'scientifically' they know nothing about the method other than repeated observations is good i.e. overly inductive. Psychology is deductive, which suits it's subject matter because they have good guesses (theories) and attempt to falisfy them and refine - theories change in all sciences.
I believe that once something has been proven with science that it is no longer science but rather Cognative Neuroscience. For example the effects of hypnosis on the brain triggers distinct physical changes in the brain. I believe psychology is a philosophy that tries to pull out the science of the brain using the mind. The mind simply being the software and the brain the hardware. Not all that uses the scientific method is siece either for example Ghost Hunting.
Even though I love Psychology I do NOT believe it is a science even if it uses the scientific method. Ghost Hunters uses the scientific method but it doesn't make that a science. I believe there are things that do work on the human brain and that is science (such as Pavlovs experiments... though part of his thoughts are still in the realm of philosophy/psychology). I strongly believe that Psychology is the study of the mind where as science studies the brain.
@idavidsawyer I got a M.S. in Psych and dropped out of the PhD program in clinical psych because there are too many aspects of it that are just not scientific. I decided to go to med school instead and study neurology. I have to say, psychology IMHO is a bit more scientific than psychiatry, but both rely too much on philosophical beliefs than scientific research (with the exceptions of cognitive, behavioral, and bio approaches). Psyc is the study of the why behind behavior, a lot of guesswork
@idavidsawyer Ghost hunters do not use the scientific method, nor do psychologists. Science demands that you attempt to DISprove your theory - not that you try and confirm it.
Any theory can be 'confirmed' by experimentation; very few cannot be disproved.
@Aurini Actually they do use the scientific method, and I never said anything about actually "confirming" a theory. When I mentioned that once something can be "proven" I was actually talking about concrete physical stuff such as the workings of the human brain vs the human mind.
@idavidsawyer People who study psychology at university study it as a science. The idea that the 'mind' is a separate entity to the brain is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific. Therefore it is not taught :)
The definition of Science is the Study and observation of phenomenon. The two characteristics that all sciences share whether it is biology or motor cycle maintenance is Consistency and predictability.
//Psychology has numerous theories. Some may think that it is a weakness but I think that is where strength lies.//
Ok, lets examine one theory, the Theory of Mind(ToM). ToM assumes a connection between observable behaviour and hidden mental phenomenon. I'm not sure how any scientist would be able to prove that an imaginary ‘mental object’ is able to cause certain behaviour; yet you see such 'theories' as a strength to psychology as a science?
I don't think there will ever be a point where being a psychologist would imply you are a scientist. This is because there are areas of psychology that are clearly unscientific. Take clinical psychology for example, labotomy anyone? By having such unscientific areas, the whole house of cards that creates the science of psychology falls down. For psychology to be a true science it would have to purge itself of such fields as clinical psychology, which may not possible.
idontgiveashit0930 psychology is a science and you just said it was...if psychology is "a social science" then psychology is a science but it's just a different kind of science. just like F257 said in his video, "SCIENCE IS ANYTHING THAT CAN BE OBSERVED AND STUDIED." This is stated in the dictionary.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. This is also from a dictionary, and clearly this specific definition is what this video is about. Psychology being "social science" is so fucking obvious its not even worth mentioning. I distinguished both, i did not say psych is a "science" as you put it in this context...with your broad definition any subject can be rationalized as "science". You clearly have no idea what academic discipline or science is about.
Psychology is a "social science" and you cant compare that to hard sciences like chemistry, physics and their subfields. The cause-effect relationship in psychology is not even transparent, most theories are not backed up by evidence derived from rigorous controlled experiments, and psych theories are not open for falsification which is considered vital in order for any field to be considered "scientific"(human psych). Consensus, and arbitrary interpretation is not enough. Psych is not science.
"most theories are not backed up by evidence derived from rigorous controlled experiments, and psych theories are not open for falsification."
All major current psychological theories are backed up by evidence derived from rigorous controlled experiments that are published in peer-reviewed journals, and psychological theories can absolutely be falsified.
Bottom line -- psychology only wishes it were a science. Simply read the comprehensive study that Koch did and see his quote about the hopes and dreams psychology still has. It's all you'll ever need to know the appalling lack of scientific credibility that shadows psychology. It's been one repeated failure after another. Moreover, this is held closely from public scrutiny and reviewal.
Just like psychology. As Fuller Torrey stated, "psychologists operate on the same level of VooDoo Priests, only, the priests release their patients much earlier".
"Is psychology a science"? That's tantamount to asking "Is Pro Wrestling a sport"? Good God. What kind of idiot would even dignify such a question with an answer.
You can't even spell science so how would you know what comprises it? If you continue to state that it is a science then I would like to ask for some kind of evidence (which i'm sure you will not provide) to back up your statement (which I am sure you are not intelligent enough to do).
Astrologers could apply the scientific method to meaningless statistics like many psychologists do. For example lets say some astrologers determine statistically accurate results that children are more likely to born during a certain stage of the moon, and conclude the moon is responsible. This kind of meaningless result is the same that many psychologists produce when they don't examine a larger picture, creating a study that produces descriptive results from descriptive data.
Clearly you are only familiar with the way that the media tends to misrepresent correlational psychological studies, never resisting the temptation to infer that correlation implies causation.
In my years of studying psychology, we had it repeatedly drilled into us that the only way that we can infer causation is through a true experiment...
1. I recently took a developmental psychology course and it involved examining particular journal articles. The study from the article I had concluded that early television watching caused children to be more likely to do worse in school, be overweight, and be bullied. Firstly the study was correlational and does not adequately prove that television viewing at young ages could be the exact cause for a child’s status at the fourth grade level.
2. This is because it was a longitudinal study and the researchers did not check to see if the independent variables were affecting dependent variables at a given time, and instead waited years to test the effect. This omission demonstrates the problem of proving causation through correlation as the causation could have occurred through many undetected attributes such as genetics, parental attention, socioeconomic status, and nutrition level.
3. Secondly the study and article did not give specifics about what programs were being watched by the children, how interactive the programs were, and how much time kids spent socializing when they were not watching television. This is important because there are many television programs in which parents and children can interact together with while watching.
This shows that some psychologists don't follow any sort of proper guidelines and their conclusions can't be justified
If they didn't properly reference previous more thorough studies that supported their hypothesis, allowing them to make a more informed assumption, and did not point out the limitations to their studies, then they should have been picked up by the journal editor and told to either include them or not be published.
Yeah, there are always going to be examples of bad writing and methodology in psychological journals (as with any journal)...
...but I've read many journal articles in medical journals that make similar mistakes.
So yes, some psychologists don't follow the proper guidelines, but neither do some medical scientists. I've read hundreds of psychological journal articles and I can safely say that these sorts of researchers do not represent the majority.
...Psychologists are fully aware that correlational studies like the example you gave not only do not infer causation, but that the dependent variable may be the result of any number of mediating or extraneous variables.
The example psychologists often use to warn AGAINST making the sorts of conclusions that you mentioned is that there is a high correlation between the number of drowning deaths at the beach and ice-creams consumed...
...If one were to conclude that ice cream consumption somehow causes drowning, they are obviously forgetting the mediating variable of the strength of the sun. Obviously on hot, sunny days, more people eat ice creams, and more people tend to go to the beach, and the more people go to the beach, the more people will drown....
...This is why psychologists strive to create true experiments with tight controls and random allocations, meaning that through the manipulation of an independent variable, one can conclude a causational effect. Sometimes however due to ethical or practical reasons this isn't possible, such as testing the effects of physical punishment on violence in children....
...In these cases, only a correlational study is possible, in which case researchers can put into place statistical controls, and remain mindful of any possible extraneous variables that need to be considered. For this reason, longitudinal studies are preferred as one has the opportunity to document the progression of the dependent variable in light of the time period in which individuals are exposed to the independent variable...
...If the independent variable occurs prior to the development of a change in the dependent variable, it is more likely to be a causal relationship, however psychologists always interpret these sorts of effects with caution, and make an effort to inform the readers of the study about the limitations of the experiment.
Psychology certainly isn't a science because there is no underlying theory. For chemisty we see laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics linking together all subfields. Psychology has no linkage between its fields and is truly hollow inside.
This video suggests that 'some' psychology is a science, but the answer to the question is a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Actually, there is no universal, or, unified set of agreed upon theory. It's simply every man for himself. they just make up any kind of so-called theory they like. This is what they actually do. It's really quite remarkable.
Very interesting. So If I were to digest this I would probably have a bowel movement. That said, I can concieve of the purpose of psychiatry... allthough it does seem a tad counter productive.
i would say its a means to an end like religion - a piece of seeming-logic humanity can grasp onto so they can understand the world. Everybody likes a good answer and whilst pyschlogy appears BS at times people will swallow it just to have an answer of some sort; a confirmation of thoughts and ideas.Even if perhaps BS, its good sounding BS and most people will just leave at that because they are simply contempt to have a sort of answer to their troubles (eg psychiatry). Thanx for enjoying it^^
You get the definition of 'science' wrong - it's more than just studying something. It's developing a hypothesis and then trying to DISprove it.
Psychology does not do that; it makes up disorders, and then finds evidence to support them.
This is closer to palm-reading than neurology.
Also - never use the dictionary for argument. It defines common use - not the true meanings of words.
Aurini 1 year ago
@Aurini You're an idiot lol
zawmbees 3 months ago
@zawmbees You live in Ingsoc and listen to electronica.
Aurini 3 months ago
it looks like many people are defining psychology by subject matter, which according to scholars is not even considered as part science methods. I work with doctors who are fantastic at what they do, but 'scientifically' they know nothing about the method other than repeated observations is good i.e. overly inductive. Psychology is deductive, which suits it's subject matter because they have good guesses (theories) and attempt to falisfy them and refine; theories change in all sciences.
TastingMetal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it looks like many people are defining psychology by subject matter, which according to scholars is not even considered as part science methods. I work with doctors who are fantastic at what they do, but 'scientifically' they know nothing about the method other than repeated observations is good i.e. overly inductive. Psychology is deductive, which suits it's subject matter because they have good guesses (theories) and attempt to falisfy them and refine - theories change in all sciences.
TastingMetal 1 year ago
Comment removed
TastingMetal 1 year ago
I believe that once something has been proven with science that it is no longer science but rather Cognative Neuroscience. For example the effects of hypnosis on the brain triggers distinct physical changes in the brain. I believe psychology is a philosophy that tries to pull out the science of the brain using the mind. The mind simply being the software and the brain the hardware. Not all that uses the scientific method is siece either for example Ghost Hunting.
idavidsawyer 1 year ago
Even though I love Psychology I do NOT believe it is a science even if it uses the scientific method. Ghost Hunters uses the scientific method but it doesn't make that a science. I believe there are things that do work on the human brain and that is science (such as Pavlovs experiments... though part of his thoughts are still in the realm of philosophy/psychology). I strongly believe that Psychology is the study of the mind where as science studies the brain.
idavidsawyer 1 year ago
@idavidsawyer I got a M.S. in Psych and dropped out of the PhD program in clinical psych because there are too many aspects of it that are just not scientific. I decided to go to med school instead and study neurology. I have to say, psychology IMHO is a bit more scientific than psychiatry, but both rely too much on philosophical beliefs than scientific research (with the exceptions of cognitive, behavioral, and bio approaches). Psyc is the study of the why behind behavior, a lot of guesswork
iMaKeUsHoOk 1 year ago
@idavidsawyer Ghost hunters do not use the scientific method, nor do psychologists. Science demands that you attempt to DISprove your theory - not that you try and confirm it.
Any theory can be 'confirmed' by experimentation; very few cannot be disproved.
That's the fundamental difference.
Aurini 1 year ago
@Aurini Actually they do use the scientific method, and I never said anything about actually "confirming" a theory. When I mentioned that once something can be "proven" I was actually talking about concrete physical stuff such as the workings of the human brain vs the human mind.
idavidsawyer 1 year ago
@idavidsawyer People who study psychology at university study it as a science. The idea that the 'mind' is a separate entity to the brain is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific. Therefore it is not taught :)
xsmokeandmirrorsxx 1 month ago
thanks very useful xx
candistarem 1 year ago
The definition of Science is the Study and observation of phenomenon. The two characteristics that all sciences share whether it is biology or motor cycle maintenance is Consistency and predictability.
wildguy8989 1 year ago
@j0n4
//Psychology has numerous theories. Some may think that it is a weakness but I think that is where strength lies.//
Ok, lets examine one theory, the Theory of Mind(ToM). ToM assumes a connection between observable behaviour and hidden mental phenomenon. I'm not sure how any scientist would be able to prove that an imaginary ‘mental object’ is able to cause certain behaviour; yet you see such 'theories' as a strength to psychology as a science?
jreb01 1 year ago
When we ask if psychology does or does not is a science, we generally thing about highly precise sciences as Physics or Biology.
I agree that we can call psychology a social science, but i would like to ask why can not psychology become one of these highly precise sciences?
In fact cognitive and evolutionary psychology are trying to walk this way.
nail108 1 year ago
Comment removed
jreb01 1 year ago
@nail108
I don't think there will ever be a point where being a psychologist would imply you are a scientist. This is because there are areas of psychology that are clearly unscientific. Take clinical psychology for example, labotomy anyone? By having such unscientific areas, the whole house of cards that creates the science of psychology falls down. For psychology to be a true science it would have to purge itself of such fields as clinical psychology, which may not possible.
jreb01 1 year ago
idontgiveashit0930 psychology is a science and you just said it was...if psychology is "a social science" then psychology is a science but it's just a different kind of science. just like F257 said in his video, "SCIENCE IS ANYTHING THAT CAN BE OBSERVED AND STUDIED." This is stated in the dictionary.
darkangel5187 2 years ago
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. This is also from a dictionary, and clearly this specific definition is what this video is about. Psychology being "social science" is so fucking obvious its not even worth mentioning. I distinguished both, i did not say psych is a "science" as you put it in this context...with your broad definition any subject can be rationalized as "science". You clearly have no idea what academic discipline or science is about.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
Psychology is a "social science" and you cant compare that to hard sciences like chemistry, physics and their subfields. The cause-effect relationship in psychology is not even transparent, most theories are not backed up by evidence derived from rigorous controlled experiments, and psych theories are not open for falsification which is considered vital in order for any field to be considered "scientific"(human psych). Consensus, and arbitrary interpretation is not enough. Psych is not science.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
@idontgiveashit0930
"most theories are not backed up by evidence derived from rigorous controlled experiments, and psych theories are not open for falsification."
All major current psychological theories are backed up by evidence derived from rigorous controlled experiments that are published in peer-reviewed journals, and psychological theories can absolutely be falsified.
jessiessica 1 year ago
Bottom line -- psychology only wishes it were a science. Simply read the comprehensive study that Koch did and see his quote about the hopes and dreams psychology still has. It's all you'll ever need to know the appalling lack of scientific credibility that shadows psychology. It's been one repeated failure after another. Moreover, this is held closely from public scrutiny and reviewal.
kevinneslund 2 years ago
Just like psychology. As Fuller Torrey stated, "psychologists operate on the same level of VooDoo Priests, only, the priests release their patients much earlier".
kevinneslund 2 years ago
"Is psychology a science"? That's tantamount to asking "Is Pro Wrestling a sport"? Good God. What kind of idiot would even dignify such a question with an answer.
kevinneslund 2 years ago
science*
wahaaaay 2 years ago
Using the scientific method doesn't mean anything. It would be very easy for an astrologer to do so but that doesnt make astrology a science.
jreb01 2 years ago
yes tard... astrology is a sciece..
wahaaaay 2 years ago
You can't even spell science so how would you know what comprises it? If you continue to state that it is a science then I would like to ask for some kind of evidence (which i'm sure you will not provide) to back up your statement (which I am sure you are not intelligent enough to do).
jreb01 2 years ago
wrong.
zacharij7 2 years ago
@wahaaaay
No tard, astronomy is a science, astrology is a fairytale.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jreb01
But if astrology were to use the scientific method they would see that it's BS.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica
Astrologers could apply the scientific method to meaningless statistics like many psychologists do. For example lets say some astrologers determine statistically accurate results that children are more likely to born during a certain stage of the moon, and conclude the moon is responsible. This kind of meaningless result is the same that many psychologists produce when they don't examine a larger picture, creating a study that produces descriptive results from descriptive data.
jreb01 1 year ago
@jreb01
Clearly you are only familiar with the way that the media tends to misrepresent correlational psychological studies, never resisting the temptation to infer that correlation implies causation.
In my years of studying psychology, we had it repeatedly drilled into us that the only way that we can infer causation is through a true experiment...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica
1. I recently took a developmental psychology course and it involved examining particular journal articles. The study from the article I had concluded that early television watching caused children to be more likely to do worse in school, be overweight, and be bullied. Firstly the study was correlational and does not adequately prove that television viewing at young ages could be the exact cause for a child’s status at the fourth grade level.
jreb01 1 year ago
@jessiessica
2. This is because it was a longitudinal study and the researchers did not check to see if the independent variables were affecting dependent variables at a given time, and instead waited years to test the effect. This omission demonstrates the problem of proving causation through correlation as the causation could have occurred through many undetected attributes such as genetics, parental attention, socioeconomic status, and nutrition level.
jreb01 1 year ago
@jessiessica
3. Secondly the study and article did not give specifics about what programs were being watched by the children, how interactive the programs were, and how much time kids spent socializing when they were not watching television. This is important because there are many television programs in which parents and children can interact together with while watching.
This shows that some psychologists don't follow any sort of proper guidelines and their conclusions can't be justified
jreb01 1 year ago
@jreb01
If they didn't properly reference previous more thorough studies that supported their hypothesis, allowing them to make a more informed assumption, and did not point out the limitations to their studies, then they should have been picked up by the journal editor and told to either include them or not be published.
Yeah, there are always going to be examples of bad writing and methodology in psychological journals (as with any journal)...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica
...but I've read many journal articles in medical journals that make similar mistakes.
So yes, some psychologists don't follow the proper guidelines, but neither do some medical scientists. I've read hundreds of psychological journal articles and I can safely say that these sorts of researchers do not represent the majority.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jreb01
...Psychologists are fully aware that correlational studies like the example you gave not only do not infer causation, but that the dependent variable may be the result of any number of mediating or extraneous variables.
The example psychologists often use to warn AGAINST making the sorts of conclusions that you mentioned is that there is a high correlation between the number of drowning deaths at the beach and ice-creams consumed...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jreb01
...If one were to conclude that ice cream consumption somehow causes drowning, they are obviously forgetting the mediating variable of the strength of the sun. Obviously on hot, sunny days, more people eat ice creams, and more people tend to go to the beach, and the more people go to the beach, the more people will drown....
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jreb01
...This is why psychologists strive to create true experiments with tight controls and random allocations, meaning that through the manipulation of an independent variable, one can conclude a causational effect. Sometimes however due to ethical or practical reasons this isn't possible, such as testing the effects of physical punishment on violence in children....
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jreb01
...In these cases, only a correlational study is possible, in which case researchers can put into place statistical controls, and remain mindful of any possible extraneous variables that need to be considered. For this reason, longitudinal studies are preferred as one has the opportunity to document the progression of the dependent variable in light of the time period in which individuals are exposed to the independent variable...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jreb01
...If the independent variable occurs prior to the development of a change in the dependent variable, it is more likely to be a causal relationship, however psychologists always interpret these sorts of effects with caution, and make an effort to inform the readers of the study about the limitations of the experiment.
jessiessica 1 year ago
Psychology certainly isn't a science because there is no underlying theory. For chemisty we see laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics linking together all subfields. Psychology has no linkage between its fields and is truly hollow inside.
This video suggests that 'some' psychology is a science, but the answer to the question is a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
jreb01 2 years ago
Actually, there is no universal, or, unified set of agreed upon theory. It's simply every man for himself. they just make up any kind of so-called theory they like. This is what they actually do. It's really quite remarkable.
kevinneslund 2 years ago
Very Very nice.
commonsense72 2 years ago
Lmao that was brilliant!!! :D
sinkinmydreams 2 years ago
Single Sacrifice for the Greater Good argument... no further comment.
authoranthony 3 years ago
Very interesting. So If I were to digest this I would probably have a bowel movement. That said, I can concieve of the purpose of psychiatry... allthough it does seem a tad counter productive.
authoranthony 3 years ago
i would say its a means to an end like religion - a piece of seeming-logic humanity can grasp onto so they can understand the world. Everybody likes a good answer and whilst pyschlogy appears BS at times people will swallow it just to have an answer of some sort; a confirmation of thoughts and ideas.Even if perhaps BS, its good sounding BS and most people will just leave at that because they are simply contempt to have a sort of answer to their troubles (eg psychiatry). Thanx for enjoying it^^
F257 3 years ago