Question for Mike (Re: psychology/social sciences)

[Nick]

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.

In which case you ask yourself, as a scientist: "Well, my different tools all produced different results. Why?" You then consider the strengths and weaknesses of your tools, and possible effects of your methodology, and consider all of the above in producing your conclusions (which may simply be that the study was too flawed to produce usable information).

A good scientific investigation of a phenomenon involves using as many different tools as possible, to try and counter any systematic bias in the tool.

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.

Sounds like weather prediction, doesn't it?

Regardless of people's particular situation, they're still human. The idea of psychology is to figure out what things are due to individual differences, and what things are simply part of being human.

The problem is that, once the popular media get hold of an idea, then it usually gets twisted beyond all recognition. (a problem hardly unique to the social sciences)

[Nick]

The second chapter of my psych textbook is devoted to research methodology - it runs to about 23 pages.

What you might find interesting are the following listing of disadvantages for the available research methods.

Experiments:
1. May be difficult to generalise to real-world settings.

Quasi-experiments:
1. Potentially confounding variables are not as well controlled as in a real experiment
2. Cause-and-effect conclusions are not as strong as in an experiment (due to 1)

Correlation:
1. Cannot draw cause-and-effect conclusions

Surveys:
1. Results may be biased because of an atypical sample (sample selection is never entirely random - e.g. subjects are often first-year psychology students who get course credit for participating. One famous quote describes psychology as "the study of first-year college students")
2. Results may be biased because of overly positive answers (people tend to answer personal questions in an ego-boosting way).
3. Results may be biased because of inaccurate recall (people's recollections are fallible)
4. Cannot draw cause-and-effect conclusions

In-depth interview and case study:
1. Cannot generalise the results to other individuals
2. Cannot draw cause-and-effect conclusions

Naturalistic observation:
1. Cannot draw cause-and-effect conclusions

Obviously, these research methods have various countering advantages that make them worthwhile - often the 4 latter ones provide suggestions for the first 2 in an effort to figure out which is cause and which is effect.

[Nick]

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).

No he's not. *You* are confusing the meaningless bullshit spouted on CNN as 'psychology' with the actual scientific research systematically trying to figure out just what makes humans tick. If *that* isn't worth studying, then what the fuck is?

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

Psychiatrists are to psychologists as physicians are to physiologists.

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.

Then they're not a real psychologist - they're just calling themselves one. Check their fucking credentials, for fuck's sake.

EDIT: Fixed the messed up quote marker

[Darth Wong]

No he's not. *You* are confusing the meaningless bullshit spouted on CNN as 'psychology' with the actual scientific research systematically trying to figure out just what makes humans tick. If *that* isn't worth studying, then what the fuck is?

It's worth studying, but a psychology degree does not necessarily include any formal training in the scientific method. I know; many of my dormitory acquaintances were taking psychology, and I saw their textbooks and homework assignments. They don't learn jack shit about the scientific method. Deal with it.

[Tsyroc]

No he's not. *You* are confusing the meaningless bullshit spouted on CNN as 'psychology' with the actual scientific research systematically trying to figure out just what makes humans tick. If *that* isn't worth studying, then what the fuck is?

It's worth studying, but a psychology degree does not necessarily include any formal training in the scientific method. I know; many of my dormitory acquaintances were taking psychology, and I saw their textbooks and homework assignments. They don't learn jack shit about the scientific method. Deal with it.

Some of them I'd even question them about their supposed use of statistics. Although that applies more to the sociology majors I've also seen some pscyh people get so wrapped up in how clever they are that they missed out on the various other ways their statistics could be interpreted or not interpreted.

Just for the record I'd like to state that I absolutely hate undergraduate psych/soc questionaires. Leave me alone I have my own work to do.

[Skelron]

No he's not. *You* are confusing the meaningless bullshit spouted on CNN as 'psychology' with the actual scientific research systematically trying to figure out just what makes humans tick. If *that* isn't worth studying, then what the fuck is?

It's worth studying, but a psychology degree does not necessarily include any formal training in the scientific method. I know; many of my dormitory acquaintances were taking psychology, and I saw their textbooks and homework assignments. They don't learn jack shit about the scientific method. Deal with it.

Okay dealt with... I'd just like to ask through, do you agree with the seemingly general consenus that this makes it worth less than the natural sciences?

Also not aimed at you, but as I've tried to respond to this thread three times now, (With my Comp cutting me off each time!! Gurr. I can't now be bothered to find the exact post and respond) To the idea that the other fields of study have not contributed as much as the Natural Sciences, I'd answer, what discoverly of the Natural Sciences they feel is greater than the concept of Democracy? (My original post was much longer than this but can be summed up this way, and this is the best method to try and avoid having the post lost by my Computer.)

[Colonel Olrik]

Roundness of Earth, Newton's laws, Relativity, Quantum mechanics, The ADN, etc

Democracy is very very very important, but it's concept is not that hard to grasp. Tribal man know it. A five year's old kid can be explained she'll see the movie everybody agrees with.

Implementing it is difficult, and making it solid a great achievement, but that's likely more because of innate human weeknesses than advancements in "political science". The ancient greeks had it, and several countries had and lost it again and again.

[Skelron]

Roundness of Earth, Newton's laws, Relativity, Quantum mechanics, The ADN, etc

Democracy is very very very important, but it's concept is not that hard to grasp. Tribal man know it. A five year's old kid can be explained she'll see the movie everybody agrees with.

Implementing it is difficult, and making it solid a great achievement, but that's likely more because of innate human weeknesses than advancements in "political science". The ancient greeks had it, and several countries had and lost it again and again.

'What is Democracy?'
'It's got something to do with young men killing each, I think'

I'd disagree, with what you said colonel, Democracy is a hard concept to get your head around. It means more than the idea expressed of voting, it contains ideas such as Free Speech, (And see the 'There goes the first amendment' Thread for how difficult some of our... less... hang on doh, erm ignore this bit... LALALA nothing to see here)

Yes the Greeks had it, but then again it was devolped by them, by thinkers whose works are still studied today, whose ideas are still relevant today, that the idea is old does not make it an easy one.. Most people would say, it's about one man one vote, a few more sophisticated people would say, it's about 'Government by the people, of the people and for the people' yet would have no idea what that ment. The democracies of today would look towards works such as Mills, and the concepts he expressed, Democracy is a hard concept to understand, it can be simplified for people, much in the same as Newton can be... ('It was the apple see it fell on his head...' yeah right, it's about maths, formula's and more, but in essence a five year old can understand it.)

Whats the point I'm trying to make, democracy isn't an easy concept, yes obviously... is that all? No I have to be clear on this, Science is important yes! However for to often I have seen it become Too important, people wish to extend it too all life, or too claim that things outside science are not as important, I'd disagree. [/i]

[Darth Wong]

It's worth studying, but a psychology degree does not necessarily include any formal training in the scientific method. I know; many of my dormitory acquaintances were taking psychology, and I saw their textbooks and homework assignments. They don't learn jack shit about the scientific method. Deal with it.

Okay dealt with... I'd just like to ask through, do you agree with the seemingly general consenus that this makes it worth less than the natural sciences?

The goal of psychology is just as worthwhile as the goal of natural science. Unfortunately, the result is near-worthless because it is so unreliable. The subject matter is difficult to study by nature, and psychologists only exacerbate the problem with their unrepentant refusal to employ the scientific method.

Also not aimed at you, but as I've tried to respond to this thread three times now, (With my Comp cutting me off each time!! Gurr. I can't now be bothered to find the exact post and respond) To the idea that the other fields of study have not contributed as much as the Natural Sciences, I'd answer, what discoverly of the Natural Sciences they feel is greater than the concept of Democracy?

That's like saying science is lesser than romantic love. Perhaps it is, but it's also a red herring. It has no bearing on the question of whether psychology is largely junk pseudoscience.

PS. If you're having problems with losing long posts, perhaps you're taking so long to compose them that your cookies time out. Before you post an extremely long message, you might want to copy and paste it into Notepad or some other text editor so you can re-enter it if you've been timed out and you have to log in again.

PPS. On second thought, shorter posts might be a good idea anyway. When people see an extremely long post, they tend to just skip to the next one, particularly if they have busy lives (many arguments are "won" by default this way; someone makes a post so long-winded that his opponent just doesn't want to bother answering it).

[Skelron]

goal of psychology is just as worthwhile as the goal of natural science. Unfortunately, the result is near-worthless because it is so unreliable. The subject matter is difficult to study by nature, and psychologists only exacerbate the problem with their unrepentant refusal to employ the scientific method.

I agree, it's just been, at least from my interpretation maybe I'm wrong, (Wouldn't be the first time... anyway) that hasn't been the general thrust from others in this thread, many seem to be knocking the other fields for not being scientific. As I stated early on, I believe that they are not sciences, (Others may disagree with me, It's still a debate in Political studies, as to whether it is Science, with roughly half my lectuers getting insulted if you call them Political Scientists, and the other half getting insulted if you don't...)

That's like saying science is lesser than romantic love. Perhaps it is, but it's also a red herring. It has no bearing on the question of whether psychology is largely junk pseudoscience.

Aye I agree, my statement may not have been a great one, the point was through, that someone argued that the other fields hadn't produced as many ideas as the Natural Sciences, or ones that had changed the world, I wastrying to, (And probs not being clear enough) point out that this wasn't the case... that both had achieved many great things, and produced many great works.

Oh and as for losing posts it's a problem with my computer... (The internet connection is terrible, it can take 1/2 an hour to log on, and likes to log off at randomn intervals... but it's free so what you going to do?)

[lgot]

Darth Wong:

It's worth studying, but a psychology degree does not necessarily include any formal training in the scientific method. I know; many of my dormitory acquaintances were taking psychology, and I saw their textbooks and homework assignments. They don't learn jack shit about the scientific method. Deal with it.

Then your critic is not to the Social sciences, but to the formation of those "so called" scientists that do not learn what is basic to be called science and yet still use this title ?
If a psycologist use the scientif method to study then it would be acceptable to be refered as science ?

[Darth Wong]

goal of psychology is just as worthwhile as the goal of natural science. Unfortunately, the result is near-worthless because it is so unreliable. The subject matter is difficult to study by nature, and psychologists only exacerbate the problem with their unrepentant refusal to employ the scientific method.

I agree, it's just been, at least from my interpretation maybe I'm wrong, (Wouldn't be the first time... anyway) that hasn't been the general thrust from others in this thread, many seem to be knocking the other fields for not being scientific. As I stated early on, I believe that they are not sciences, (Others may disagree with me, It's still a debate in Political studies, as to whether it is Science, with roughly half my lectuers getting insulted if you call them Political Scientists, and the other half getting insulted if you don't...)

I think the gist of what others have been saying is that those fields would be more useful if they did, in fact, conduct themselves like scientists. The results would still be limited by the inherent problems with the source data, but it wouldn't be as arbitrary as it is now.

That's like saying science is lesser than romantic love. Perhaps it is, but it's also a red herring. It has no bearing on the question of whether psychology is largely junk pseudoscience.

Aye I agree, my statement may not have been a great one, the point was through, that someone argued that the other fields hadn't produced as many ideas as the Natural Sciences, or ones that had changed the world, I wastrying to, (And probs not being clear enough) point out that this wasn't the case... that both had achieved many great things, and produced many great works.

I agree that good things have come from places other than science. I think, however, that when people have been slamming the so-called "humanities", they have been slamming them when they try to conduct the sort of investigation and inquiry that is best conducted via the scientific method. In other words, they get slammed for applying their touchy-feely subjective methods to fields of study which should be conducted in a rational, objective way. We also get irritated when people take the title "scientist" and apply it where it clearly does not belong.

Oh and as for losing posts it's a problem with my computer... (The internet connection is terrible, it can take 1/2 an hour to log on, and likes to log off at randomn intervals... but it's free so what you going to do?)

Ah, I see. Most unfortunate. I get so accustomed to my DSL connection that I forget that not everyone is similarly equipped.

[Darth Wong]

Then your critic is not to the Social sciences, but to the formation of those "so called" scientists that do not learn what is basic to be called science and yet still use this title?

If a psycologist use the scientif method to study then it would be acceptable to be refered as science ?

If a psychology degree required knowledge of scientific methods, it would be useful. Unfortunately, psychology is taught in a manner which closely resembles sociology, history, English literature, and every other field of the "humanities", which is to say that theories are judged on how convincingly you can argue for them or at best, produce shaky statistics to grant them false credibility, with no formal method of determining their objective usefulness or accuracy.

[lgot]

Darth Wong:

If a psychology degree required knowledge of scientific methods, it would be useful. Unfortunately, psychology is taught in a manner which closely resembles sociology, history, English literature, and every other field of the "humanities",

Then what we have is a wrong educational system, which should teach the scientific method to the students in this area as a method to be followed, not some "side topic in the philosophy books".
I agree with you there, the overview of the professional in those areas seems to fall in this steryotipe of false-scientists.
But the Human sciences still exist as there is people who use the scietific method to deal with that.
Very far away to say its not possible to Sociology or psycology be sciences then (Like some people pointed here) , we should just say that some people claim to be scientists in those areas without being one.

[Nick]

If a psycologist use the scientif method to study then it would be acceptable to be refered as science ?

If a psychology degree required knowledge of scientific methods, it would be useful. Unfortunately, psychology is taught in a manner which closely resembles sociology, history, English literature, and every other field of the "humanities", which is to say that theories are judged on how convincingly you can argue for them or at best, produce shaky statistics to grant them false credibility, with no formal method of determining their objective usefulness or accuracy.

Then (once again) the problem seems to be with the the Canadian and/or American educational system. . . at the University of Queensland at the very least, psychology is taught like the science it is. (I know that, since that is where I studied cognitive science)

[Enlightenment]

If a psychology degree required knowledge of scientific methods, it would be useful.

What type of psych programs were you exposed to? Research psychology or counselling psychology? I'd be rather surprised if the universities which operate psychology research programs--rather than counseling psychology programs--don't require their students to both know and apply the scientific method. I'd also be equally surprised if counselling psych programs made much mention of the scientific method as it's not really applicable to what counseling psychologists do on a day-to-day basis.

[Tsyroc]

If a psychology degree required knowledge of scientific methods, it would be useful.

What type of psych programs were you exposed to? Research psychology or counselling psychology? I'd be rather surprised if the universities which operate psychology research programs--rather than counseling psychology programs--don't require their students to both know and apply the scientific method. I'd also be equally surprised if counselling psych programs made much mention of the scientific method as it's not really applicable to what counseling psychologists do on a day-to-day basis.

I would be that most of my complaints about psych and sociology are mainly founded on the half-assed undergrads I usually encountered.

I do work with a lady who has a psyche degree with a masters in counseling from the school I went to so I wouldn't suprised if the counseling aspect is part of the problem but it's hard to say with
her as my only example because she is wacked in so many different ways.

[Darth Wong]

If a psychology degree required knowledge of scientific methods, it would be useful.

What type of psych programs were you exposed to? Research psychology or counselling psychology? I'd be rather surprised if the universities which operate psychology research programs--rather than counseling psychology programs--don't require their students to both know and apply the scientific method.

Then prepare to be surprised. I've read psych textbooks, and their discussion of scientific methods is limited to proper use of statistics. In their minds, that is the scientific method. Argh.

[DasBastard]

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).

No he's not. *You* are confusing the meaningless bullshit spouted on CNN as 'psychology' with the actual scientific research systematically trying to figure out just what makes humans tick. If *that* isn't worth studying, then what the fuck is?

Touchy, touchy. You are plainly wrong on the facts: psychology by definition does not concern itself with physical neurology, biochemistry, etc. Psychiatry does.

Psychiatrists are to psychologists as physicians are to physiologists.

Terrible simile. Psychiatrists are trained as physicians, for one thing, while psychologists require no training in physiology. Furthermore, physiology is a pure biological science, which psychology is most assuredly not.

Then they're not a real psychologist - they're just calling themselves one. Check their fucking credentials, for fuck's sake.

What, pray tell, defines a "real" psychologist? You have not refuted (or even addressed) my point - which is that the standards for being called a 'psychologist' are very low - which undoubtedly injures the reputation of real scientists working in the field.

Did you forget that your alma mater (Queensland) places psychology in its Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, next to Journalism, Education, Social Work,etc - and not with the Natural, Biological or Medical Sciences?

[Zoink]

Then (once again) the problem seems to be with the the Canadian and/or American educational system. . . at the University of Queensland at the very least, psychology is taught like the science it is. (I know that, since that is where I studied cognitive science)

At my former Canadian university, there were two psycology programs. There was the B.A in psycology (Arts department) for people who never took a science course in their life, and then there was the B.Sc in psycology (Science department) that required numerous levels of organic chemistry, biology, and such, that would allow you to apply for med school.

I know as fact that those with the former degree leave with no knowledge of the scientific method, but have little experience with the latter to know whether its any better.

[Darth Wong]

At my former Canadian university, there were two psycology programs. There was the B.A in psycology (Arts department) for people who never took a science course in their life, and then there was the B.Sc in psycology (Science department) that required numerous levels of organic chemistry, biology, and such, that would allow you to apply for med school.

I know as fact that those with the former degree leave with no knowledge of the scientific method, but have little experience with the latter to know whether its any better.

Even if the latter does possess some knowledge, the title of "psychologist" is still made worthless by the fact that both can honestly claim it.

[Nick]

I know as fact that those with the former degree leave with no knowledge of the scientific method, but have little experience with the latter to know whether its any better.

Even if the latter does possess some knowledge, the title of "psychologist" is still made worthless by the fact that both can honestly claim it.

So, is the title 'scientist' made worthless by the fact that creationist morons claim they are honestly entitled to it?

I use the term 'psychologist' in the sense I was taught at university - to refer to a qualified scientist whose area of expertise happens to be psychology. In other words, in the same way you might use the term 'physicist' or 'physiologist'.

It is certainly inappropriate to use such terms to refer to someone who's only qualification is an undergraduate degree which happens to include a major in those fields (this is one of the biggest difference between vocational degrees such as Medicine, Engineering, Nursing, which do produce MD's, Engineers and Nurses, and general degrees such as a BA or BSc) (Caveat: some majors within BA and BSc are set up with such stringent requirements that they end up effectively forming vocational degrees. Most often, however, these general degrees are designed to provide a basis for further specialised study as part of a Masters or Doctorate, as happens with psychology).

The way I use the term 'psychologist' is also similar to the level of qualification required for full membership in organisations such as the American Psychological Association, or for a coure to be accredited by such an organisation as providing training for 'professional psychologists'

For the really bored, these are the APA's accreditation guidelines:
http://www.apa.org/ed/G&P2.pdf
(I don't actually recommend reading this, since it is really long and legalistic. Kind of like reading the accreditation guidelines from IEAust or IEEE* for engineering courses)

* Institution of Engineers, Australia; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (or something like that)

EDIT: Fixed the messed up quote marker

[Nick]

Found some better descriptions of real psychologists from the Australian Psychological Society:

The difference between professional psychologists and psychiatrists:
http://www.psychsociety.com.au/psych/ps ... efault.asp

Qualifications for membership:
http://www.psychsociety.com.au/psych/qu ... efault.asp
(Much more readable than the APA accreditation guidelines)

Various specialisations:
http://www.psychsociety.com.au/psych/sp ... efault.asp

This framework from the APS is the environment the UQ School of Psychology operates within - it's hardly suprising my view of what it means to be a psychologist is the way it is :>