Is Psychology a Science?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2003-07-24 12:00am

First, I'll give you guys background information for why I'm asking this question:

I'm arguing with this idiot right now who thinks that science is "moving in" and "stealing" from religon's territory. Apparently he thinks that social and emotional guidance are the sole property of religion

. It's confusing as hell to debate with him, because the points he brings up in support of his claim don't even have anything to do with it.

One such point was that religion is unfairly treated because creationism isn't taught in classrooms for being "unscientific" but (in his opinion) equally unscientific things like psychology and the social sciences are still being taught. This is stupid because:

1) Of course creationism, which is supported only by religion and faulty logic, shouldn't be taught at all in a biology classroom.
2) Assuming this is true, this is just means that stupid pseudo-science is being taught, in its OWN classes, not that science is getting preferential treatment (which it does and should) in ITS own classes.

He then goes to say that science is completely inadequate for solving social and emotional problems, because things like psychology are crap, as I explained above (make up your mind dumbass, is psychology a science or not?). Confused yet? He then says that just as society has put limits on religion (people don't believe the Bible is an explanation for everything anymore), so should it put limits on what science can explain. He concludes by saying that it's irrational to fully believe in either one, as if science can be irrational.

I don't agree with him, because of his stupid assumption that religion should have a monopoly on emotional and social issues. He's an idiot to think that a psychologist who may have questionable methods is wholly unqualified to counsel you, yet some priest who tells you fairy tales about God is qualified. My stance is that the social sciences offer their own separate services, and try to give help based on the results of research. On the other hand, a priest will "help" you by telling you that Jesus loves you, God will forgive you, etc. IMO, giving an alternative which people are free to choose or not choose is not "stealing" from you, especially when you don't own something in the first place.

But enough with that. Debating with this guy has got me thinking about things. I don't know much about psychology, and I'm only taking an introductory course (to fill out requirements) in it next year in college. From what I know, I feel that psychology and the social sciences are (highly) imprecise sciences. Obviously, objective data is hard to collect, and different people will think and behave different ways. However, an effort is made to gather this data, and to use it to explain things. So what do you guys think? Are psychology and the social sciences just merely imprecise sciences? Or are they pseudoscience?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-24 12:19am

Psychology is clearly a science because it is based on objective data and gathering of information, forming a hypothesis to explain that data, and then testing the hypothesis. In short, it uses the scientific method, and therefore must be a branch of science.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "social sciences" being a science. There are obviously branches of archaeology, geology, and similar that clearly use the scientific method. Other times, using the scientific method is all but impossible, but data can still be gathered and analyzed even if the results cannot be tested.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-07-24 12:22am

Yes it is, there is more to psychology than Freudian dream interpretation you know.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-24 12:38am

the psychology I've seen my grandmother practice is certainly not a science. It relies on illogical assumptions taken as dogma, and intentionally ignoring observational data.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-24 12:42am

Master of Ossus wrote:Psychology is clearly a science because it is based on objective data and gathering of information, forming a hypothesis to explain that data, and then testing the hypothesis. In short, it uses the scientific method, and therefore must be a branch of science.

That's a very wide definition. Traditionally, sciences describe nature and its laws.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-07-24 12:54am

Ok, after digging out my old (I say old because of my drop out status) Psychology folder from college I flicked through and found the "why psychology is scientific" bit.
It reads:

A scientific approach should be: Objective-not subjective. It is fact.
Empirical-testable, not just theory
Replicable-replicate it, test it again

The rest says how scientific explanations are different from common sense. If you want me to type that out just ask. One of the reasons you might be interested in says

Scientific explanations recognise that what is true in one culture may not be true in another. Common sense just thinks of one culture.

I thought you might find that useful because if he's speaking on a christian level then he's only thinking about one culture.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-07-24 01:11am

Durandal wrote:That's a very wide definition. Traditionally, sciences describe nature and its laws.

Umm, that would be natural science, or the physical sciences, not science in general. The definition of science is already broad:

science
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

Natural sciences fall under the b definition, while all other sciences, like psychology, would fall under the a definition.

Yes, psychology is a science, because it uses the scientific method. And, yes, some branches of psychology are more subjective and hence rely less on the scientific method (it's very difficult to prove Freudian theories, for instance), but that doesn't mean that all branches should be discounted as science (such as biophysical and behavioral psychology, which adhere to the scientific method very closely).

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-07-24 01:20am

Psychology is sort of semi-science IMO. It uses the scientific method, but really only most of the time. Sometimes it's pure theory.

Since the human mind is still so incredibly unknown to us, psychology is a science that sort of "grasps" at the subject matter, rather than holding it firmly like more hard sciences, like engineering or such.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2003-07-24 03:06am

I think there's a lot of stuff that's passed of as truth, even though it really isn't, but there must still be a large segment that's doing honest research. What's advertising, if not applied psychology, after all?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-24 03:52am

Some of psychology is genuine science, especially the branch that deals directly with the brain. The rest of it is pseudo-science, or, more charitably, the Aristotelian method: observe a problem, create a hypothesis to explain it, immediately declare the hypothesis truth and spend your entire career defending it. There are still Freudians out there who take dream interpretation very seriously.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-25 01:56am

yes but those kinds of psychologists are laughed at by psychologists like my father. He is a neurobiologist, which is a branch of psychology just like neuroscience.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-25 01:59am

Psychology can be a science. However, it can also be a worthless pseudoscience. That's the problem of having a profession where you can be a practitioner with either a PhD in neurobiology or a low-grade diploma. The standards for entry are set so fucking low that any idiot can call himself a psychologist, so the term has no meaning.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-07-25 02:19am

Psychology and Sociology and other social studies can be as scientific and pseudoscientific as astronomy, because they can all have great heaping gobs of evidence and observations and still come up with an answer that's just plain WRONG. Because just like bullshit answers can come of psychology because of backasswards logic, the same can be said of any science. Just as phenomenonalism made the Geostatic universe, so to it created bad psych.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-25 02:30am

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Psychology and Sociology and other social studies can be as scientific and pseudoscientific as astronomy, because they can all have great heaping gobs of evidence and observations and still come up with an answer that's just plain WRONG. Because just like bullshit answers can come of psychology because of backasswards logic, the same can be said of any science. Just as phenomenonalism made the Geostatic universe, so to it created bad psych.

However, the bar for entry into the psych profession is set so low that you get a much lower signal to noise ratio than you do in other branches of science. And there doesn't seem to be as aggressive a posture toward misbehaviour in their own ranks.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-07-25 03:33am

I think Darth Wong summed up the situation. It CAN be a science...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-07-25 11:49am

A "soft science" as I call it, while parts of it can indeed be based around proper scientific practice, others can be disguised as science when really they are nothing like that.

It can relate to parts of the Big Three main sciences (Biology, Chemistry & Physics) though, but then so can English Language.

You can do business science these days...

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2003-07-25 06:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:However, the bar for entry into the psych profession is set so low that you get a much lower signal to noise ratio than you do in other branches of science. And there doesn't seem to be as aggressive a posture toward misbehaviour in their own ranks.

Having worked with psychologists and sociologists both academically and professionally for some years (as well as having studied it in college to some extent, but honestly not enough to call myself anything other than a layman), I'd have to agree that it's a problem of the practicioners rather than the practice itself. More specifically, here are some of the common trends I've noticed vis-a-vis psychology and sociology:

1) Scientific style over substance. A frequent failing I've noticed is that people in the field tend to apply scientific methodologies in a haphazard manner. They like having numbers in their papers, but don't necessarily give enough thought to how those numbers were arrived at, whether they are reasonably accurate, or even if they are necessarily relevant. They like to leech off the esteem of the physical sciences by using numbers, but never bother to give the numbers the proper vigorous consideration.

There's also a lot of research that doesn't really expand the field. I spend some time last year reading corporate culture research and more than half the experiments "helpfully" confirmed that bosses respond better to input from their subordinates that flatter said boss or conform to his expectations. Thanks for the newsflash, assholes. Educational psychology provided some fucking gems like noting that increased levels of violence in schools tended to result in lower grades. Who'd a thunk it?

Another common trend I've noticed is the use of limitations as excuses. Doing proper scientific research in these areas can be difficult -- the difference between these and other sciences has been summed up in quotes as pithy as "At least electrons and gerbils don't lie (or are deluded, confused, etc.)". It can also be difficult to isolate specific factors or categories when researching human behavior. However, where these should simply be acknowledged as limitations which result in a greater margin of error, these complexities are often used as excuses for sloppy work or a rationale to toss out proper methodolgy altogether IMO.

2) Way too much emphasis on how people feel about the results of research. I've heard psych students talk about subscribing to particular schools of thought because they didn't like the implications of other schools of thought. Skinner is "just too depressing?" Who gives a shit? Tell me about the flaws in his work if you're going to toss it out the window, not that it isn't Care Bear-sy enough for you. Ditto with "Stanley Milgram's experiment was wrong because he was mean to people and I don't think people would really act like that...Well, no I don't think his methodology was bad or anything, I don't know, I've never really looked at how he did the experiment." Really? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

My absolute nadir as a college student was being in an 300-level abnormal psych class where the rest of the class voted not to use the scientific method because one "genius" pointed out that "When Voyager found a ring-system around Saturn that was twisted like a braid and they never epected to see anything like that so science could be wrong and so we shouldn't use it". There were so many fucking things wrong with that sentence I literally didn't know where to begin. The other students were suprised by my objections, but hey, why should they have any understanding of the scientific method, they were only in their third year of studying a scientific discipline. Asshats.

(Going back to the situation that prompted the original post, it might be worth pointing out that social sciences don't necessarily have to show us solutions per se, but rather help us to predict what the results of different solutions might be so we can make more informed decisions with whatever ethical standards we wish to apply. I'd also say that if the current psychology/sociology teachings are unscientific bullshit, that's a call to clean them up not let even worse shit like Creationism in to clutter up the place.)

3) Projection. One of the best places to find screwed-up people on a college campus is the Psych department. Like law enforcement (another field I've worked alongside a bit over the years), psychology seems to be one of those fields that often attracts the people who are least suited to practice it. The most common problem I've noticed with psych types is their tendency to project their problems and flaws on to everyone else while completely failing to acknowledge them in themselves in anyway shape or form. I'd bore you with stories of my Drugs & Behavior teacher as a classic example, but this post is getting overlong already.

Sociology doesn't seem quite as bad sometimes, but I have the sinking feeling that it's only because it hasn't been around as long. I'v noticed an even greater tendency toward Ivory-Tower theorizing in sociology though, both in academic circles and out of them. A lot of sociologists will do anything to study people except actually interact with the subjects in question.

I gotta go, so I'll stop ranting now.

-- Joe Momma

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-25 06:40pm

I had enough debates with psychology and sociology majors in university to know that most of them are just a lot of bluster and hot air. They are virtually incapable of debating without resorting to the appeal to motive: "you're just saying that because ..."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-25 07:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:
SyntaxVorlon wrote:Psychology and Sociology and other social studies can be as scientific and pseudoscientific as astronomy, because they can all have great heaping gobs of evidence and observations and still come up with an answer that's just plain WRONG. Because just like bullshit answers can come of psychology because of backasswards logic, the same can be said of any science. Just as phenomenonalism made the Geostatic universe, so to it created bad psych.
However, the bar for entry into the psych profession is set so low that you get a much lower signal to noise ratio than you do in other branches of science. And there doesn't seem to be as aggressive a posture toward misbehaviour in their own ranks.

Well I don't know about that. Paul Cameron, the guy who did the research that most conservative Christians quote about homosexuals having a severely reduced lifespan was discredited very quickly, and he was expelled from the APA for incompetent testing methods and violating the APA's code of ethics.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-25 07:13pm

Durandal wrote:Well I don't know about that. Paul Cameron, the guy who did the research that most conservative Christians quote about homosexuals having a severely reduced lifespan was discredited very quickly, and he was expelled from the APA for incompetent testing methods and violating the APA's code of ethics.

For being offensive, not for being unscientific and incompetent.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-25 07:30pm

The link I posted makes it clear that there were flaws in his methodology (six severe ones were identified by his peers). His offensiveness and fundamentalism (even today, anti-gay Christians cite his "research") seemed to be what drew attention to him, and he was quickly discredited. I really don't know too much about the peer review process in the psychological community though. This could have been an isolated, high-profile case.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-25 07:31pm

Durandal wrote:The link I posted makes it clear that there were flaws in his methodology (six severe ones were identified by his peers). His offensiveness and fundamentalism (even today, anti-gay Christians cite his "research") seemed to be what drew attention to him, and he was quickly discredited. I really don't know too much about the peer review process in the psychological community though. This could have been an isolated, high-profile case.

Let's just say that the errors in methodology are there in a great many psychology studies. The ones that get punished are the ones who offend people.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-07-26 11:43pm

Psychology is a Science (I can not think there can be something like a semi-science or soft science. It uses the Scietific Method or not.). The problem is that some psychologists are not scietists, that is all.

But then; It is not a unique trait of Social Sciencies of Psycology to have members that failed to follow scientific methods...
Richard Owen - A scientist - was a defensor of Creationism because he could not accept a world without God and thus had a rupture with his friendish with Darwin because he did not accepted Darwin's conclusions...and Not because Richard Owen failure we are going to say that Biology can be a science...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-27 12:08am

The thing I've seen a lack of in the psychological community is independent peer review. You never hear of psychologists trying to independently reproduce another's experiment to verify its conclusions. This is a critical part of the scientific method.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-27 08:09pm

Yes you do durandol, if you are talking about actual psychology, instead of the pseudoscientific freudian crap. Real psych goes through proper peer reviewed journals, including science and nature and the like as well as all the specifically psychological professional ones. Sure if you think of psychology though the eyes of those without a degree who are therapists and arent actually psychologists, then yea its crap, but big surprise