they aren't sciences?

[Shrykull]

I was reading how on this site Mike was saying that psychology and sociology aren't really sciences at all, what's the difference between them and the so called hard sciences like physics etc, the methods employed I guess are very different.

[kojikun]

psychology and sociology all assume some form of ultimate mindset and if you dont fit it youre wrong and need treatment. they always assume various things are WRONG and go about trying to prove it with poor methods of study and then fix it.

sciences are based on study and observation of what you can analyse, psychology on the other hand is based on opinions.

[Admiral Valdemar]

They are usually an amalgamation of the other main three sciences, even English Language could be passed off as a science if you wanted. In the end, they have no real laws and experiments, economics likes to pass itself off as a science with nice theories and formulas.

[kojikun]

linguistics is actually a real (but soft) science. its fluid in that the rules various languages have change over time, but unlike, say, psychology, there are no assumptions based on opinion not evidence, languages are studied, analysed, and taught.

[Mad]

Psychology is a science in the sense that it strives to follow the scientific method. Its limitation is that it cannot say for sure what covert actions are going on inside someone's head. Thus, its studies can only say that some things are "more" or "less likely" to occur given a certain set of circumstances. Early psychology didn't follow the scientific method, but, as far as I know, most current theories are based on direct observations under controlled circumstances.

It all depends on what you define a "science" as. Modern-day psychology fits the definition available at http://www.m-w.com: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." In that sense, yes, it is a science.

What definition of science is being used that psychology does not fall under?

[Wicked Pilot]

I was reading how on this site Mike was saying that psychology and sociology aren't really sciences at all, what's the difference between them and the so called hard sciences like physics etc, the methods employed I guess are very different.

Theories within the field of psychology and sociology are never discarded. When it comes to explaining human behavior, there are many different theories trying to explain the same thing. Some are very modern, some date back to Freud. No one ever steps up and says "Theory A is more fit than Theory B because evidence, test, observations, etc show it to be." In real sciences there exist a vicious thurst to tear down old theories and replace them with newly discovered ones that describe the universe even better. Theories that don't back the facts are dropped like bad habits as soon as better ones come along. As long as sociologies and psychologies aren't willing to make the effort to clean the closet and throw out all the garbage, they will never be considered on the level of physics, chemistry, etc.

There are of course other reasons, but this is a big one.

[kojikun]

lmfao.. psychology rarely if ever uses the scientific method.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Sociology is closer to science IMHO than psychology. They are both based on the bias of the observer, but a good sociologist observer can get conclusions based on reproducible results. Sociology delves into economics and mass psycology just as much as it goes into culture and thought. It seeks to create a basis on which human society can judge itself accurately and basically tries to make clear everything about society/ies. Aristotle had a number sociological theories that are still quite applicable, though his physical science was lacking. The fact that these sciences are steeped with human bias means that it takes a very unbiased person to accurately make sociological theories. But human bias gets in the way of the sort of progress that happens in the world of physics and chemistry. This little difference means some idiots and racists can weasel their way into the community. But the community is just as valid and scientific as the hard sciences today, or just a little below.

If you wanted few other near-sciences check out Poli Sci, History, etc. They can all be just as subject to human bias and opinion.

[Mad]

lmfao.. psychology rarely if ever uses the scientific method.

Proof?

Psychologists understand that empirical evidence is the only way to do any kind of meaningful research, and thus they must peform controlled experiments.

Are you saying that, for example, Ivan Pavlov's classical conditioning experiments werenn't done using the scientific method? Or what about B. F. Skinner's experiments with operant conditioning?

Perhaps you can name some experiments that are respected in the field of psychology that did not follow the scientific method? Or are you just guessing based on what you feel that psychologists do? Have you actually taken a college-level intro to psychology course? (I'm afraid to find out what what a high school-level psych course would teach, so we'll just ignore them...)

[lgot]

That is joke...
There is even someone here who said Sociology wants to treat people ? What...

Sociology and other Social or humans sciences are Sciences. If their theories and those who study it follow the scientific Method.
Early Psycology used scietific method.
Being hard to predict the outcome does not make something be un-scientific, just makes Harder , nothing else.
There a lot of problems in those fields, due the formation of groups and tendencies, yes. But they are far too young sciences. Try to get hold in the history of Biology, A Science. It was a mess until the 19th century biologists cleaned up the house.

If you claim to not be possible to have a science to study the field of Psycology or Sociology ,all natural phenomena with natural laws to be found, better to gave up the Scietific Method. (just because some did it wrongly, does not mean you should) .

[kojikun]

MPD. Nuff said. The conclusions they make have no support. They claim fifty million things about the brain as if theres some magical cause for it all. They rarely look for real neurological and neurochemical problems that are the real causes of mental conditions.

[Mad]

MPD. Nuff said.

Not really. My psych book doesn't go into much detail about multiple personalities; it just kind of skims over it. I guess there's not much data to work with, as it said the problem is very rare. I can see the difficulties they'd have in gathering data in an ethical manner.

The conclusions they make have no support. They claim fifty million things about the brain as if theres some magical cause for it all. They rarely look for real neurological and neurochemical problems that are the real causes of mental conditions.

Source? Specific studies? Are these accepted by psychologists? Again, I ask, have you actually taken a college-level intro to psych course, or is this all from watered-down media coverage that you've happened to come across?

[UltraViolence83]

I never read anything about Psychology that involved neurochemicals. Isn't that more in the field of psychiatry? Psychology is more the study of thinking itself rather than the physical aspects of how it is done. We can talk about chemistry all we want, but CAT scan after CAT scan isn't going to find the next Hitler or the next Buddha.

[kojikun]

when was the last time you read a psych report on the neurological cause of schizophrenia for instance? or the causes of depression? guaranteed a large number of people who suffer from depression suffer so because of defective serotonin receptors, or a malfunction in serotonin production, or release trigger issues, all of which would cause depression quite easilly. yet psychologists spend most of their time trying to talk to people and identify their issues and mental disfunctions without attempting to address possible REAL causes that could be fixed.

Take me mom for instance. As a result of accidental consumption of PCP while trying marijuana when she was young, her developing brain chemistry was thrown out of whack and she now suffers from a great deal of depression and anxiety. SSRIs do not function, psychologists help hasnt. I can pretty much guarantee she has a sever deficiency of serotonin, or receptor sites are not functioning properly as a result of the PCP consumption. PCP is known to cause sever anxiety, which can result from overstimulation of serotonin receptors.

Would you like to wager that THAT is why she is depressed? How many other situations are the result of neurological issues? Theres simply too little actual research into causes. When was the last time you heard of depression being studied in CT scanners? etc? Or treatment based on something other them drugging them up with SSRIs or MAOIs?

[UltraViolence83]

I must say that I highly dislike the labeling of people by the way they act/think and how some try to degrade us to completely predictable machines, in my opinion...at least in the sense that some may require "treatment."

Clockwork Orange anyone?

Funny though that I really like Psychology and Sociology. They are very interesting subjects and go hand in hand with each other.

[kojikun]

UV, CT scans have determined that excessive testosterone and little serotonin leads to extreme and uncontrollable aggression and hatred. CT scans CAN tell you a great deal about peoples minds.

The next Hitler or Buddha, however, will base their ways on learned ideas, while the medicable mental health issues are always the result of nonlearned disruptions of normal brain function.

also UV youre forgetting that THOUGHT is highly if not entirely dependent on neurology. I could make you happy or sad, angry or affectionate, with little more then a pill. How much is thought if you can be made suicidal with a molecule? How much is thought if you can be made to hate simply by ingecting you with a hormone? the fact that so much is based on THOUGHT study is ridiculous, especially since thought is not controlled by thought alone.

[lgot]

C´mom, there is no need to argument this.
This dude thinks Sociology and Psycology assume a mindset then offer a treatment.
Now Sociology is a form of medicine, It heal people...
He does not have idea of the proper field of those areas and I just doing some blind shots. There is much to talk about, to make critics but those ?
"Hey, you are sick! You have a attack of Marxism. Lets treat you with Weber!"

[UltraViolence83]

If you're talking about me, I never said that most Psychology attempts to do that. I also never said that sociology was a "medicine."

That's if you're talking about me, anyway.

[lgot]

of course I am not talking about you. Just go and read the initial messages and you will see easily who is.

[kojikun]

i think he means me and if i said sociology was a form of medicine i wasnt paying attention tho i probably just said they which was silly. heh.

and i never said that ideas could be treated. never. i said that psychology places too much emphasis on thought and doesnt consider real causes of various mental diseases.

[UltraViolence83]

UV, CT scans have determined that excessive testosterone and little serotonin leads to extreme and uncontrollable aggression and hatred. CT scans CAN tell you a great deal about peoples minds.

The next Hitler or Buddha, however, will base their ways on learned ideas, while the medicable mental health issues are always the result of nonlearned disruptions of normal brain function.

Well yeah...I kind of meant that some people may try to forceably "cure" these "ill" people. I would hate to be scanned and then be considered mentally ill, or whatever, because my brain functions aren't near enough to the "social norm." I sure seem ok by my own judgements, and that's all that matters. On the other hand, I notice I seem overly aggressive at times, and have frequent emotional imbalances. But to ME I'm what I am.

Unless the subject in question is VERY unstable, this should never be used as an excuse to categorize people into the "Valid" and "Invalids."

[UltraViolence83]

This is a little off-topic, but I should say that I am utterely oppose those certain people that say we should/can/will lower human aggression via GE and/or chemical implants or injections. Also judging how people will think and act from scanning their heads. Just because someone has a lot of testosterone doesn't mean they'll be a psychopathic crook, or even be violent or aggressive people at all. Want to say goodbye to war? Say goodbye to sports as well. Sorry, I get these things in my mind and I have to throw them back out before they drive me nuts.

Rant concluded.

[kojikun]

social norm is exactly the problem, however. psychology is based on "societal norms" being the RIGHT way, no matter how properly functioning or sane a person may be! if society says that enjoying hurting someone who hurts you is wrong, youre mentally defective and you need treatment. if society says that loving someone of your own sex is bad, you need treatment. SOCIETY doesnt determine how well the brain works, the brain works the way the brain works.

but a CT scan isnt going to tell you whether society thinks youre working right or not, itll tell you whether your brain is actually operating the way it should be according to the function of the bit being looked at. if its found you, say, do not respond to dopamine the way your neurons should, then it is possible to then figure out if it is possible to repair the damage. Psychology doesnt do this and never will.

The best thing that can be done is to eliminate the diagnosis shit that psychology possesses and leave it as a distraction from the issue so that you can be properly diagnosed by neurologists who can then work out possible ways to repair whatever is malfunctioning. IF and only if repair cannot be completed, then and ONLY then should psychopharmaceutical/psychiatric/psychological treatment proceed, preferably in that order (drugs, then drugs and talk, then talk, given the success of each previous method)

[lgot]

kojikun:

i think he means me and if i said sociology was a form of medicine i wasnt paying attention tho i probably just said they which was silly. heh.

Ok, mistakes happens and since you ackowledge it was silly thing to be said, lets move on.

and i never said that ideas could be treated. never. i said that psychology places too much emphasis on thought and doesnt consider real causes of various mental diseases.

I did not said ideas. The max/weber thing was a joke , just it.

Now, understand : different fields, close object of work.
Psycology is not even about diseases. Even if they deal with the diseased midn and their relation with the outside world. But you do not even need to be sick to use psycology. Actually, A lot of psycology is used everyday in very health people, schools, jobs interview, opinion public research, etc. They deal with the relations of the human mind with the exterior ideas. (a crude definition, but let some psyschologist do defend his class better). They may have some commum points, but that is just interdiscipline. That is why all you have been doing is asking psycology to be psychiatry and deal with the same subject. You do not need 2 sciences to deal with the same field in the same way.

[kojikun]

lemme say this, the best way to use psychology is to wage war. >D