Is Psychology All Bunk?

Excellent, I'm getting the results I need here, no one else seems to have given the info I need to see the field for what it is. I am playing devil's advocate to get more of a feel for what psychology is like and so far this is looking better than others would have me believe.I shall mention such comments in the debate taking place at SD.net just as a neutral display that not all psychology is thrown to the wolves simply because there are more kooks in the subject than normal.Thanks for the replies, if you have any other resources that help with the arguments posted in the links, please note them here. I apologise if my posts were a bit condescending or ignorant, I couldn't think of a way to get the true psychologists arguing my points as well. [This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-17-2003][This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-17-2003]

I don't pretend to be very knowledgable about psychology; I was offering the example of chemistry to illustrate how one can do rigorous science without being able to probe very deeply in structure. However, being able to do such probing will only enhance one's abilities.Also, are Freud's theories any more than a historical curiosity nowadays?

I would offer linguistics as a potential sub-field of psychology, and I don't believe that anyone would impugne lingusitics's reputation as a science...

Some forms of psychology, like cognitive psychology, are fairly rigorous, but others leave a lot to be desired in that respect.I'm tempted to mention behaviorism, but that seems to me to be a purely black-box view of the mind.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-27-2003]

Here's a nice article about whether psychology is a science: psychology - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

This strikes me as a classical example of valuable research being demeaned because it shows something we already 'know'. Remember also that clinical depression does not mean exactly the same thing as the common usage of the word.

To summarize the skepdic article, psychology eitherStates familiar things in pretentious and obfuscated languageOrIs a rigorous science, and not social work

Perhaps this is off topic (sorry, I'm only new...) but...I am puzzled by the tendency for people to put things into two categories "Science = useful" and "Non-science = Load of rubbish" is it possible for something to be non-scientific and still useful?To me, whether psychology/psychiatry is science or not is really irrelevant, I find it a useful and live-preserving thing for me and that's really all that matters to me.I personally don't think that Psychology SHOULD be a science.

Science is just another way of saying "to the best of our knowledge." I think the thing to consider here is, if conclusions of psychology aren't arrived at via the scientific method, what method are they arrived at, and is that method as good?I think psychology has been a science ever since the introduction of statistics.

The problem being of course to accurately define "science" and "the scientific method".

Science as most of us seem to understand it, is not so much a point as a process. It is a collection of statements that can be used to explain observed facts and to make useful and accurate predictions about future observations.At any given moment in time, the collection of statements that best describes the observations makes up the body of knowledge that we call SCIENCE. For example, for over a thousnad years, Ptolemy's veiws of the universe served well. They explained what was seen and could be used to make predictions of future events that were later verified.It was Good Science. Only later, when new obeservations were made that could not fit within the set of statements in use, was there any need to change things. That did not make Ptolemy's system BAD, only incorrect.Psychology today is similar. It is a set of statements, based on observations, that explain what is seen and can be used to make predictions about future events and observations. It is good science.There is every likelyhood, that as more is learned, as more observations are made, we will find a situation where the current set of statements will be proven insufficient and some new set of statements that more accurately explains observations will be developed.But to say that Psychology today is bunk would be tantamount to saying that Ptolemy was bunk. It wasn't. It was a well reasoned scientific system that worked well within the observations of the day.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not that hard. "Science" is that body of knowledge derived via the scientific method.What's the scientific method? Observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and reporting. Observations and experments should be repeatable or sharable. Hypotheses should be falsifiable.Psychology meets these criteria, as far as I can tell. At least it does these days.

unfortunately if defining science and the scientific method were that easy it kind of deprives me of an area of study.

Defining it is easy. It's the application that is hard. Another way to define science is "what scientists do." That's the ones the courts use, I believe.One more way to look at the scientific method would be to answer the question "assuming that there's an objective reality that we all share, what's the best way to come to an agreement about how it works?" Implicit in that question is an idea that, if a bunch of people look and see the same thing, it's probably real - or if it's not, we can't tell the difference.

and I will say it again.I'm glad things aren't that simple, if they were it would deprive me of a fascinating field of study!