Question for Mike (Re: psychology/social sciences)

[Durandal]

Mike, reading through your posts and websites, I get the impression that you have a low opinion of psychology and the social sciences in general. I get this impression from these two quotes...

From your homepage:

The media constantly promotes the message that women are failures if they don't juggle motherhood and career, and the "social scientists" (a term I use with much reservation) have even gotten into the act, arguing that children are actually better off in day care.

From the canon database:

Such confidence in psychological profiling is disturbing because psychology is, at best, an unreliable science, and at worst, a pure pseudoscience. The nature of the subject matter makes truly controlled, repeatable experimentation a pipe dream. Worse yet, any observations are, by necessity, incomplete, obscured by the statistical noise of uncontrolled variables, and riddled with subjectivism, thus rendering the resulting conclusions highly suspect.

But then, I've read some posts of yours where you've used psychological conclusions to back up your criticisms of the Christianity and the Catholic Church, in general, such as this quote.

The "exception?" That is bullshit as well. Many religious policies cause serious harm to society worldwide. The fundamental Christian doctrine of worthlessness requiring salvation has been vilified by psychologists for decades, and with good reason. The Islamic concept of jihad isn't exactly benign either. However, in this case, we are talking about tort, not criminal charges.

What I'm asking is to what extent do you think psychology can be relied upon? Granted, at the current stage, psychology cannot give concrete answers for human behavior, but the scientific method assumes a natural cause for every phenomenon. The behavior of humans can be linked to chemical interactions and the firing of neurons on some, basic level. So, when we computers become fast enough and the programming gets good enough that we can map out all those variables, psychologists could develop a good model for human behavior. However, the current method they use (conducting surveys, subjective human analyses) is, as you say, riddled with subjectivity.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, reading through your posts and websites, I get the impression that you have a low opinion of psychology and the social sciences in general.

You're right. Psychologists, sociologists, and psychiatrists seem reluctant to employ the scientific method properly. Theories which throw Occam's Razor to the wind (eg- multiple personality disorder) become "chic" and easily accepted. The fact that psychology and sociology are typically found in the <I>ARTS</I> faculty of any given university explains it. I've read through sociology and psychology textbooks; their use of "scientific methods" is restricted to statistical analysis.

But then, I've read some posts of yours where you've used psychological conclusions to back up your criticisms of the Christianity and the Catholic Church, in general, such as this quote.

The "exception?" That is bullshit as well. Many religious policies cause serious harm to society worldwide. The fundamental Christian doctrine of worthlessness requiring salvation has been vilified by psychologists for decades, and with good reason. The Islamic concept of jihad isn't exactly benign either. However, in this case, we are talking about tort, not criminal charges.

What I'm asking is to what extent do you think psychology can be relied upon?

It can be relied upon when they say something which is as obvious as the nose on your face. It cannot, however, be relied upon for, say, convicting someone of a crime (unlike other scientific fields; a mechanical engineer's testimony on the forensic analysis of the twisted wreckage of a car should hold far more weight than any "psychological profile" in the mind of a jury, but it does not).

Granted, at the current stage, psychology cannot give concrete answers for human behavior, but the scientific method assumes a natural cause for every phenomenon. The behavior of humans can be linked to chemical interactions and the firing of neurons on some, basic level. So, when we computers become fast enough and the programming gets good enough that we can map out all those variables, psychologists could develop a good model for human behavior. However, the current method they use (conducting surveys, subjective human analyses) is, as you say, riddled with subjectivity.

And it may or may not improve. I see two key problems with sociology and psychology:

1. Many practitioners are not trained in proper scientific methodology.
2. Human brains are a complex system. Complex systems incorporate a certain degree of unpredictability.

I think the key is not to imagine that we can someday predict human behaviour with equations, but to recognize that at best, it will become like meteorology: useful but no guarantees.

[Durandal]

You're right. Psychologists, sociologists, and psychiatrists seem reluctant to employ the scientific method properly. Theories which throw Occam's Razor to the wind (eg- multiple personality disorder) become "chic" and easily accepted. The fact that psychology and sociology are typically found in the ARTS faculty of any given university explains it. I've read through sociology and psychology textbooks; their use of "scientific methods" is restricted to statistical analysis.

I'm taking a sociology class this semester (part of my Gen. Ed. requirements), and the professor said something which slightly irked me. He basically said that there wasn't one, set scientific method, and that psychologists and sociologists use different methods which are all scientific.

However, in the method he outlined, there was no mention of Occam's Razor, which makes me lean toward the conclusion that social sciences are more or less just impersonating legitimate science.

Also, I don't know which universities you've looked at, but most of the ones I've seen have sociology, psychology and the like listed under Liberal Arts and Sciences (along with physics). And, it seems to me like every damn thing under the sun is listed as a science these days. Apparently, criminal justice is now a science. At my old university, a degree in mathematics was called a degree in "mathematical sciences." While mathematics is an irreplaceable contributor to legitimate science, it is not itself a science. Pure mathematics does not describe nature in any way unless applied through a science.

I've also noticed that a disproportionate weight is placed on social sciences and humanities over physical sciences at most universities (mathematics gets an even harsher treatment). Only 2 physical sciences are required for Gen. Ed., while 3 social sciences and 3 humanities are required.

And it may or may not improve. I see two key problems with sociology and psychology:

1. Many practitioners are not trained in proper scientific methodology.
2. Human brains are a complex system. Complex systems incorporate a certain degree of unpredictability.

I guess point 2 depends more or less on how much progress chaotiticians (who are physicists) make in studying complex systems.

Point 1 is true, from my experiences. I had a psychology professor teaching my critical thinking course last year, and when we touched on the evolution vs. creationism debate, she wouldn't believe me when I told her that evolution was a fact. She said that it hadn't attained that status yet, or other such nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

I'm taking a sociology class this semester (part of my Gen. Ed. requirements), and the professor said something which slightly irked me. He basically said that there wasn't one, set scientific method, and that psychologists and sociologists use different methods which are all scientific.

Argh. Every idiot with a classroom wants to pretend that his personal method is scientific. After centuries of direct attack, we are witnessing the final and most insidious assault of the know-nothings against science: embrace and extend.

Yes, it's the Microsoft technique. Embrace science superficially, learn its terminology, claim to be its champion, and then add all sorts of extra, unscientific bullshit until it's corrupted beyond recognition.

However, in the method he outlined, there was no mention of Occam's Razor, which makes me lean toward the conclusion that social sciences are more or less just impersonating legitimate science.

The proof is in the pudding. If a science is reliable, then it can be applied by engineers. Physics is applied by mechanical engineers, civil engineers, etc., and it works well. Chemistry is applied by chemical engineers, and it works well. Quantum physics is applied by computer engineers (the real ones who work in places like IBM labs, not those fucking MSCE's), and it works well. Relativistic physics is applied by aerospace engineers, and it works well. Now, let's turn to the so-called "social sciences"; they are applied in "social engineering". And how reliable is social engineering? I think the point is made.

Also, I don't know which universities you've looked at, but most of the ones I've seen have sociology, psychology and the like listed under Liberal Arts and Sciences (along with physics).

At mine, the liberal arts faculty and the science faculty were separated.

And, it seems to me like every damn thing under the sun is listed as a science these days. Apparently, criminal justice is now a science. At my old university, a degree in mathematics was called a degree in "mathematical sciences." While mathematics is an irreplaceable contributor to legitimate science, it is not itself a science. Pure mathematics does not describe nature in any way unless applied through a science.

People love to put terms like "scientist" and "engineer" after job descriptions that fit the criteria for neither. It's their way of claiming legitimacy.

I've also noticed that a disproportionate weight is placed on social sciences and humanities over physical sciences at most universities (mathematics gets an even harsher treatment). Only 2 physical sciences are required for Gen. Ed., while 3 social sciences and 3 humanities are required.

Actually, that one is easy to explain. There are lots of people out there who take liberal arts, because the admissions criteria are low and any idiot with half a brain can get in. There are comparatively fewer people who can handle science or engineering. Therefore, universities have a vested interest in attracting as much of the liberal-arts crowd as possible, because they represent easy tuition money.

From a profit motive, liberal-arts students are better for a university than engineering or science students. Engineering and science students require laboratories, heavy machinery, complex equipment, lasers, water-jet cutters, tensile test machines, metal samples, high-temperature high-voltage equipment, etc. What do arts students require? They pay a healthy tuition and they need nothing but a bench and a photocopier. Hell, they even pay for the photocopies.

I guess point 2 depends more or less on how much progress chaotiticians (who are physicists) make in studying complex systems.

Personally, I think it won't ever happen. Even if you can learn to mathematically model these complex systems, you still have the problem of collecting your input variables, which are far too numerous and difficult to evaluate for a person (remember that you must include his entire life history).

Point 1 is true, from my experiences. I had a psychology professor teaching my critical thinking course last year, and when we touched on the evolution vs. creationism debate, she wouldn't believe me when I told her that evolution was a fact. She said that it hadn't attained that status yet, or other such nonsense.

The idea of a psychology professor teaching a critical thinking course fills me with dread

[Durandal]

The proof is in the pudding. If a science is reliable, then it can be applied by engineers. Physics is applied by mechanical engineers, civil engineers, etc., and it works well. Chemistry is applied by chemical engineers, and it works well. Quantum physics is applied by computer engineers (the real ones who work in places like IBM labs, not those fucking MSCE's), and it works well. Relativistic physics is applied by aerospace engineers, and it works well. Now, let's turn to the so-called "social sciences"; they are applied in "social engineering". And how reliable is social engineering? I think the point is made.

That's what I was thinking, as well. What have social scientists and psychologists done that can be universally applied? As far as I know, all they do is come out with interesting little studies that show what a certain percentage of people like, don't like, or whatever. What mind-blowing contributions has psychology given us? It seems like the only things that their research really gives us is interesting little factoids that only apply to very select groups.

People love to put terms like "scientist" and "engineer" after job descriptions that fit the criteria for neither. It's their way of claiming legitimacy.

Indeed. Every field of study now has "science" slapped on to its name. I'm sure that somewhere, some college offers a Bachelors of Science in jerking off. Oh, wait, that's a philosophy degree. :D

Personally, I think it won't ever happen. Even if you can learn to mathematically model these complex systems, you still have the problem of collecting your input variables, which are far too numerous and difficult to evaluate for a person (remember that you must include his entire life history).

This is true. That's the biggest problem in social science. They define every experience as having an effect on an individual, yet they claim that it's possible to model behavior which is based on those innumerable variables.

The idea of a psychology professor teaching a critical thinking course fills me with dread

As I said, there was no reason for this woman to have a doctorate in science, because she doesn't even know the basic scientific method (something that all first-year physics students know ... ideally). Nice lady, but she didn't have any place teaching a physics major critical thinking. None of her examples included anything about observation of phenomena outside the context of psychology. Same thing with all the anthropology professors. They used some ridiculously long-winded example of the scientific method (I think it was sickle-cell anemia or something) when they could have just dropped a fucking ball and gone from there. Instead, they focused on quasi-solipsistic questions of "But how do you know the light is on?"

[lgot]

I would like to say,in defense of those they are extremely new and yes, many people who proclaims to follow those sciences are not really the same as the real scientists. And to be fair, that happens a lot with other sciencies, where some teachers claim some particularity in their method over the "traditional" Methond and of course, we had in the history great scientists of those areas who time or another failed to apply the scietific method (Just in my mind comes Owen, who was a great scientist but when faced with the need to abandom the religion faith turned to be a annoying creationist and to justify his positions left aside the scietific method).
But yes, both areas of those sciencies are tainted by the spirit of "hey its not a frog, its human. It must be different" , so those various scientific methods are claimed...
But that cannt take of for example, to take of Marx his credits as a scietist that used very well the scietific method to study economy and history. Or for example Freud, for most errors he have made, how the use of scientific method he ended with much charlantans, religions views about mind-sickness and all the fake "medicine" and treatment people had to suffer in the 19th century if they are "crazy".
you can blame the pseduo-scientists that use them and their "science" (or dont use) for not being real scientists, but not them...
But them I know how normal is this "feud" between those of social sciences (yes , I believe is a huge mistake not teaching scietific method as the method to follow in social science university. In mine its only come as subject of phylophical changes of a society.) and i doubt this will change anything...

[CorSec]

Indeed. Every field of study now has "science" slapped on to its name. I'm sure that somewhere, some college offers a Bachelors of Science in jerking off. Oh, wait, that's a philosophy degree.

By that reasoning, I have the equivalent of a Masters' of Engineering in the same.

[Skelron]

Hmm I think I agree with the general argument that the Humanites should not be a 'Science' but I think I disagree with the reasoning behind such things. I study Politics, and get very anoyed at the idea of a Political Science... Politics is not a Science, it is for a start untestable. (Their are many reason's for this, one being that it would be immoral, the other being human reactions, when/if they work out what is being tested, most people swap thier natural actions to try and support the experimenter, it's a subconcious thing...) However I would argue that this move to cliaming it is a science is not due to them wishing to attack science, but due to the arrogance shown by Scientiasts to the other fields of study. The fact that it is increasingly the case that people believe that science is the only worth while path to knowladge, so if you wish to study something, and be accepted to it, in the modern age, you have to call it a Science.

Far from being an attempt to get onje over on the sciences, it is to keep up with them.

[Darth Wong]

However I would argue that this move to cliaming it is a science is not due to them wishing to attack science, but due to the arrogance shown by Scientiasts to the other fields of study. The fact that it is increasingly the case that people believe that science is the only worth while path to knowladge, so if you wish to study something, and be accepted to it, in the modern age, you have to call it a Science.

And do you have some logical reason to believe that the scientific method is not the most logical, objective method of inquiry? The superiority of the scientific method over other means of inquiry is well-established; it is not "arrogance". The fact that others are shamelessly trying to capitalize on it without employing the method is fraudulent, hence my distaste for the practice.

[Zoink]

The Sorry State of Science Knowledge in Non-Science Related Fields:

While getting my own degree, I got two "complementary" courses (yeehaw!) unlike my psychology roommate who spent most of his course-choosing saying "I hear this one is really easy".

One was in "Environmental Geography", which I laughed through. I was so used to my applied science courses I had forgotten the simple "memorize the facts" courses I had taken in high-school (like History and such). The teacher said no one in her entire faculty understood why hurricanes turned in one direction only, depending on hemisphere. She mentioned off-hand that anyone who could give her an explanation would get an extra 10% on the next test.

There were a few other non-geography people in the class with me, one first-year engineering student tried but failed (got it all wrong). After class, I explained the whole thing to her, drawing diagrams, showing how air flowing in one direction is spinning faster than the earth's rotation, and how this will push it towards the equator and vice versa. Next day she tried explaining this to the class, she butchered the explanation, but considering 98% of the class wouldn't understand it anyway... Anyhow, I didn't get the extra 10% because I aced the course without it.

I'm sure that somewhere, some college offers a Bachelors of Science in jerking off. Oh, wait, that's a philosophy degree.

While I question the motivation of 95% of the people getting a philosophy degree, I'm hardly one to knock the philosophy profession. I mean, I not going to call Plato a jerk-off. I think any course in critical thinking is useful, even if it doesn't lead directly into a line of work.

Even today, some of the most respected astrophysicists, the ones studying the nature of reality, time, etc, often consult philosophers to help formulate their theories. For example, the nature of time: a new view of time is of "block time", that time's flow is an illusion, an artificial construct of how our brain perceives the time dimension. The subject is non-intuitive; most people would dismiss the subject entirely. The philosophers in question obviously have a good scientific background, but the training in critical thinking is of create help to those whose specialty may be in formula crunching, testing ones own logic and assumptions, and such

My second "complementary" course was in philosophy. I deeply regret not being able to take more. The entire course dealt with morality, giving different moral structures, and such. I'd like to see more religious fundamentalists take courses like this.

[Skelron]

And do you have some logical reason to believe that the scientific method is not the most logical, objective method of inquiry? The superiority of the scientific method over other means of inquiry is well-established; it is not "arrogance". The fact that others are shamelessly trying to capitalize on it without employing the method is fraudulent, hence my distaste for the practice.

In it's field no. I whole heartadly agree with you that science's method is the best method we have when dealing with the Natural Sciences. The problem is that it Cannot be applied to the humanites, those that claim it can, smack me of being guilty of reductionism. The problem isn't with the scientific method, but with Scientists who will knock other fields for not employing it. Many amoung the scientific world, and the general population will claim another field is worthless if it dosn't employ the scientific method, and so in response the other fields try to employ it. Only to find that in their fields the strict Natural Sciences method is worthless, it can't be used, because humans arn't predictable, it can't be claimed that a Human will act exactly like another human from say the Gender, Social Class, Family and upbringing. (Example myself and my Older Brother, same family, social class, upbringing and schooling, with the same teachers almost. yet we are as different as you can imagine) So they modify it, to take into account the problems that exist with applying the Scientific method to their fields, yet when they do so, Science accuses them of cheating.

The whole problem arises because Science can't appreciate that in some areas it's method is not the best system, and so expects it to be used in all areas, yet it can't be used, and shouldn't be used. The Humanites existed for a long time without science, and have given many insights into the Human nature without it's method, by using other method's better suited to studying humanity, they should return to these systems, and leave the scientific method to the Natural Sciences.

[Zoink]

Many amoung the scientific world, and the general population will claim another field is worthless if it dosn't employ the scientific method

Typical psycologist non-science:

Videogames are violent. Some kids are violent. Here's an example of a violent kid that plays videogames. Videogames must encourage violence. Lets ban videogames.

I do have a problem with this type of analysis. A test can be perfomed to test this hypothesis. It may be hard to perform and have a certain amount of error, but until its done we don't know:

Are kids that play videogames actually more violent?
Do already-violent kids seek out computer games?
Do kids that desire to play videogames naturally violent even w/o videogames?

Any conlusions w/o addressing the many assumptions and variables isn't much of a conclusion.

[RedImperator]

I study history and political science, and I DO think scientific thinking can be applied to the humanities, especially in "big picture" thinking. Unfortunately, it can't be perfectly applied because human reactions are too unpredictable, and politics and history are nothing but the study of human reactions on a grand scale. I hate the attitude that some have, though, that goes "well, since history isn't a science, I can make up any conclusion I want if I cite enough sources and call it legitimate". Political science, especially, is rife with that attutide. If I felt like torturning myself, maybe I'd write a doctoral thesis about applying scientific attitudes to the study of history. "Here you go, Dr. Review Board Member, I'd like to defend a thesis which states your entire professional career has been bullshit."

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Typical psycologist non-science:

Videogames are violent. Some kids are violent. Here's an example of a violent kid that plays videogames. Videogames must encourage violence. Lets ban videogames.

I saw this one guy trying to ban first person shooters. His biggest examples was this one kid who went on a rampage. 8 shots, 8 kills, 5 of them headshots. He claimed he was trained to kill by playing FPS.

Problem was, he didn't play FPS. He was immitating movies.

[Lagmonster]

I saw this one guy trying to ban first person shooters. His biggest examples was this one kid who went on a rampage. 8 shots, 8 kills, 5 of them headshots. He claimed he was trained to kill by playing FPS. Problem was, he didn't play FPS. He was immitating movies.

Yes, the 'First Person Shooter' special on CBS or some such. I saw it a couple of days ago. After the whole show, I noted that not once shred of conclusive evidence was presented that linked video games to violence. The only obvious thing wrong was the host's son, who had become addicted to counterstrike. At the end, the host said something telling: "I gave him the choice between school and counterstrike, and for a while he chose the game, dropped out of school, and played all the time."

At THAT point I realized that the guy who made the documentary didn't need to crusade against the whole goddamned industry. What he needed was to learn how to be a *father*. I'm saying, "Pull the plug on the modem, discipline the kid, erase the computer, sell it, be an authority figure, dammit. Make the stupid kid do something with his life other than play fucking games all day, teach him something useful so he doesn't grow up and rob me in ten years." Instead of being a useful father, he hid behind a camera and wandered all around the continent listening to psychologists and so forth and trying to find someone to blame for the existance of the game his son had been addicted to. Never did it occur to the moron that if the game wasn't there, the son would have just found something else.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I saw this one guy trying to ban first person shooters. His biggest examples was this one kid who went on a rampage. 8 shots, 8 kills, 5 of them headshots. He claimed he was trained to kill by playing FPS. Problem was, he didn't play FPS. He was immitating movies.

Yes, the 'First Person Shooter' special on CBS or some such.

CTV, IIRC.

I saw it a couple of days ago. After the whole show, I noted that not once shred of conclusive evidence was presented that linked video games to violence. The only obvious thing wrong was the host's son, who had become addicted to counterstrike. At the end, the host said something telling: "I gave him the choice between school and counterstrike, and for a while he chose the game, dropped out of school, and played all the time."

At THAT point I realized that the guy who made the documentary didn't need to crusade against the whole goddamned industry. What he needed was to learn how to be a *father*. I'm saying, "Pull the plug on the modem, discipline the kid, erase the computer, sell it, be an authority figure, dammit. Make the stupid kid do something with his life other than play fucking games all day, teach him something useful so he doesn't grow up and rob me in ten years." Instead of being a useful father, he hid behind a camera and wandered all around the continent listening to psychologists and so forth and trying to find someone to blame for the existance of the game his son had been addicted to. Never did it occur to the moron that if the game wasn't there, the son would have just found something else.

Yeah, I agree. parental responsibility is almost never mentioned when this subject is brought up. Although, I think it was a mistake to get rid of enforcing the ratings in BC.

But you know what's scary. I thought it was a pretty good documentary cause I was expecting it to be much, much worse.

[Durandal]

In it's field no. I whole heartadly agree with you that science's method is the best method we have when dealing with the Natural Sciences. The problem is that it Cannot be applied to the humanites, those that claim it can, smack me of being guilty of reductionism.

That's because the humanities accept any conclusion that can be well-argued. Mike asked why the scientific method wasn't the overall best reasoning method to come to an objective conclusion, and you replied by saying that it can't be applied to a field which is completely devoid of objectivity. Sorry, but no shit, Sherlock.

The problem isn't with the scientific method, but with Scientists who will knock other fields for not employing it. Many amoung the scientific world, and the general population will claim another field is worthless if it dosn't employ the scientific method, and so in response the other fields try to employ it.

No, they employ some bastardized form of it. Humanities and social sciences all leave out Occam's Razor for their conclusions, and that is an integral part of the scientific method. Half the debates in humanities and social science classes would be nonexistent (or just wouldn't be as fun :) ) if Occam's Razor was rigorously applied.

Only to find that in their fields the strict Natural Sciences method is worthless, it can't be used, because humans arn't predictable, it can't be claimed that a Human will act exactly like another human from say the Gender, Social Class, Family and upbringing.

So, why masquerade that field by calling it a science? Science relies on predictability. It can be an interesting field of study, but it's not a science.

The whole problem arises because Science can't appreciate that in some areas it's method is not the best system, and so expects it to be used in all areas, yet it can't be used, and shouldn't be used.

Then those fields cannot claim to be legitimate sciences. That is the beef scientists have.

The Humanites existed for a long time without science, and have given many insights into the Human nature without it's method, by using other method's better suited to studying humanity, they should return to these systems, and leave the scientific method to the Natural Sciences.

Oh, please. "Human nature" is the humanities equivalent of a political buzzword. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is one, overbearing nature to humans. It's the ultimate form of racism, and the reason no one has given an accurate description of human nature is because every person is different. It amazes me how many people waste their time struggling with the "human nature" concept. If something cannot be applied on smaller, local scales (ie- "The nature of black/white/Asian/Hispanic people is..."), then what the fuck makes anyone think that such thinking can be applied on larger scales (ie- "The nature of the human race is...")?!

Humanities classes are fun to take because they incite critical thought and interesting debates, but the humanities haven't given the world jackshit in comparison to science, to be frank.

Social sciences aren't sciences, period. They claim to be, but they don't utilize the scientific method that the legitimate, established sciences do. So, they make up bullshit about having "multiple methods which can all be scientific." What makes a method scientific? Why isn't Occam's Razor included in the definition of such?

[lgot]

Those examples are not good...

The videogames examples are bad. This a case of bad psycologist. Here in my city, due some killings in satanic rituals the cops want to banish and forbiden the playing and selling of old Role Playing Games as D&D or White Wolf World of Darkness games. The person who come in tv and made the most important defense was a psycologist that clear said that stupid and the games are just a fun that everyone could need, at least put people to read and to be creative.

The Social science accept anything is a bad use as well. Bad people who call themselves Social Scientists without using what is mostly basic to be one, the method, do that.
The easier stuff is to blame in educational systems. They made it easier yeah with the stupid notion of that you avoid mathematics and other other areas that take a lof of the student due the ammount of cauculations and law as synounimous of lazyness (Not even the person better handcap for so called humans area) and they made the curses easier and less troublesome when shouldnt be. Actually should be even more exigent, since the humans area need a hard work due the feble aspect they have.

And the Method scientific can and must be used to anything that call itself science.You may even prefer to use any other method, instintcs, dices, etc, but then, Durandal and Wong are correct, if they do not use the scientific method they do can not be called Sciences.

[David]

Just a small note, there is more to psychology than the quacks you all seem to be refering to. There are many credible pychologists that are chemists and biologists. While there is a great amount of unpredictability in any complex system like the brain, personality disorders that we might scoff at are many times caused by imbalances in the brain, or damage to it's components.

[DasBastard]

Just a small note, there is more to psychology than the quacks you all seem to be refering to. There are many credible pychologists that are chemists and biologists. While there is a great amount of unpredictability in any complex system like the brain, personality disorders that we might scoff at are many times caused by imbalances in the brain, or damage to it's components.

I think you are confusing psychiatry (which is a branch of medical science concerned primarily with the physical aspects of mental health) and psychology (which is a social 'science' primarily concerned with the social/emotional/behavioural aspects of the mind).

Physchiatrists are fully-trained physicians (i.e. M.Ds) and can prescribe medical treatments, including drugs and surgery.

Psychologists can have a wide range of qualifications and cannot prescribe medical treatment - while a future psychiatrist is in medical school, a psychologist may be writing a M.A. thesis on how and why Hamlet was a crazy fuck.

[Sothis]

Physology can certainly offer insights and tid-bits into people's minds, but each different method of physology will yield different results. One physologicist might spend a few hours studying the patient's history (IE, family, medical, social), and determine results from that. Another might take the approach of how they react to certain stimuli or tests. You might end up with different results.

The pre-sentence reports that I get to see at work all mainly stick to the same format (an analysis of the crime and the motivation behind it, a look at the defendant's childhood, his/her current lifestyle- IE, estranged from spouse/kids, alcoholic, drugs, depression- social life- IE active, inactive, anti-social) and form results accordingly to decide what sentence is appropriate. For the most part it works, but it's still more of an educated guess, with failures.

[Darth Wong]

If engineers were like psychologists, you would have 30 different opinions on how much tensile stress a piece of AISI 4340 can handle. And each one of them would have convincing-sounding arguments behind it, not to mention a large number of earnest advocates, all claiming similarly "scientific" methods.

Luckily for you and anyone else who trusts his life to real science and engineering, you don't have to worry about that when you drive over a bridge, take an elevator, or ride in an airplane, because engineers are not like psychologists.

The psychology students were the second-dumbest students in my dorm (right behind the "general arts" people). 90% of psychology theories fall into the "duh, thanks for pointing out the obvious" category, and the remaining 10% don't work. I used to get a kick out of blasting their ignorant and simple-minded ideas and watching them get upset. Most of them finally resorted to this argument: "Oh yeah? Well the government is run by liberal-arts majors, so you're going to work for me someday."

... to which I would usually respond that they could get started on their meteoric rise to power by applying now for their future jobs at Burger King

[Lagmonster]

Most of them (psychology students) finally resorted to this argument: "Oh yeah? Well the government is run by liberal-arts majors, so you're going to work for me someday."

As I recall, a truly impressive number of the 'general arts' students where I attended university were not what you would consider 'destined for greatness'. I don't want to...well, okay, I *do* intend it as a criticism of the value of the general arts degree, but I also know for a fact that some people with little education still manage to be in profitable and well-rounded professions later on down the road. But when you're in school with them, leave school with your doctorate or what have you, and then run into such familiar faces managing retail stores...

I'd be interested to know the prevailing opinion of the value of the general arts degree.

[RedImperator]

General arts? Bah--Frat boys who think the weekend starts on Wednesday. The communications majors turn their noses up at them, and the philosophy majors have better employment prospects. They might as well save $50,000 or so and buy a degree from a non-acredited diploma mill. It's worth the same and they'll learn just as much.

[Nick]

I'm seeing a lot of arguments from ignorance here. . .

I think we all know the basics of the scientific method:
1. Observe
2. Theorise

Repeat ad infinitum, applying Occam's Razor as required.

Any field of endeavour which follows the above process qualifies as a theoretical scientific endeavour, regardless of the subject matter being observed.

So, that gives us the criteria for a valid theoretical science (be it physics, biology, chemistry, sociodynamics, politics, meteorology, whatever)

To get a valid applied science, we need the ability to make predictions about future observations which perform statistically better than chance. It is not required that we be able to make predictions with 100% accuracy (it's nice when we get it, since that gives us greater utility, but it isn't necessary).

The example of meteorology has already been brought up - it's predictions are far from perfect, it used to be the province of shysters and crackpots, but is now, most emphatically, an applied science.

Psychology (in all its flavours, ranging from economics, clinical psych, occupational psych, social psych, polisci, developmental psych, etc, etc) is attempting to study a subject even more contrary than the weather - humans. Is it any surprise that the field is somewhat, shall we say, confusing?

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that many of the 'social sciences' are not rife with quacks and crackpots and pseudoscientific bullshit (ouch, watch out for those double negatives). But in large part, that's a PR problem - real scientists in these fields are cognizant of the uncertainty in their results - but uncertainty and equivocation and "well, the evidence is difficult to interpret" doesn't make good TV, does it? So the media swarm to the quacks who believe their way is the "one true way". It isn't a problem with these fields - it's the usual social fascination with pseudoscientific ideas (don't forget, physics and chemistry and so forth have had a massive headstart in trying to get rid of the crackpots, and they still haven't managed to pull it off).

These fields can be, and are, studied in a scientific manner. Physicists and chemists and so forth have the luxury of setting up tightly controlled experiments that allow them to precisely control their experiments. Generally speaking, the social sciences fall somewhere in the spectrum between strictly observational sciences (such as astronomy) and the heaviliy experimental sciences (such as physics and chemistry). The analogy comparing them to meteorology if a pretty good one. (How do I know? I've got a major in cognitive science - a discipline which attempts to bring together the ideas of AI, psychology, philosophy, neuroanatomy and linguistics).