Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?

Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
- HorrorVacui
- Beer drinker and freethinker
- Member
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #30 - March 25, 2010, 11:15 AM

A psychologist could blow up his patients...
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #31 - March 25, 2010, 11:23 AM

Could be fun. I mean if they were the sort to self destruct anyway then what have you got to lose?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- HorrorVacui
- Beer drinker and freethinker
- Member
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #32 - March 25, 2010, 11:31 AM

And it's for the purpose of scientific enlighenment
- Ferrero
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #33 - March 25, 2010, 02:39 PM

I'm half way through my undergraduate degree in Psychology. I have often puzzled over this question as the fields within Psychology can differ so greatly between themselves when it considering their epistimological and ontological positions as well as their views on how theory is formed and subsequently, how research should be conducted. This is an important point to consider when considering whether to call Psychology a real Science as the traditional sciencific approach is characteristed by forming a theory through deductive reasoning, knowledge as being observable facts in the natural world (positivism) and that social phenomena along with their meanings exist independant of people (objectivism). Some fields of psychology, such as perception, neuro(bio-)psychology and cognitive psychology ascribe heavily to the empirical sciencific stance when it comes to research, and if these were the only areas of study in psychology then psychology could easily be defined as a 'real science'. But, not everyone believes that humans can be studied in a rigid fashion, their actions separate from an individuals' subjective interpretation and therefore do not ascribe to the approach favoured by 'real science' e.g. aspects of social, biological and applied psychology. But that isn't to say the methods that qualitivative researchers used are redundant in the face of hard empirical data as the same level of transparancy (if not more) is required and that's what good research is about. Given the complex nature of Psychology I have come to the conclusion that Psychology is not a traditional science like physics, biology and maths, nor should it strive to be. If looking for a defining umbrella term for the subject the closest you could come to calling it a science would be to call it a social science.
- Tommy
- Let me feel your butt
- Ex-Muslim
- The Ass Patter
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #34 - March 25, 2010, 05:21 PM

+1.

Btw, I'm not a Physics literate, but isn't Physics sometimes very subjective too in the sense that a lot of the observations which are made are very dynamic and fluctuating (Quantum physics for example)?

Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
- panoptic
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #35 - March 25, 2010, 05:31 PM

Quantum physics is about as speculative as it gets.

Psychology, in any case, couldn't be more empirical!

"...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
- Tommy
- Let me feel your butt
- Ex-Muslim
- The Ass Patter
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #36 - March 25, 2010, 05:41 PM

As I've said, I'm not Physics savy, but I remember a Physics major telling me once that the laws of Quantum Physics is not well defined and it fluctuates a lot--which is why it's hard to study and understand. Maybe this is why Richard Feynman probably said, "If you think you understand Quantum Physics, then you don't understand Quantum physics." Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Would like any Physics majors to shed some light for me.

Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #37 - March 25, 2010, 08:08 PM

As far as I understand it the laws are well defined but they predict a certain amount of randomness in any experimental results. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is probably the most famous example.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Tommy
- Let me feel your butt
- Ex-Muslim
- The Ass Patter
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #38 - March 25, 2010, 08:33 PM

So this makes me wonder, in Science is a theory defined by an explanation based on a set of facts that are always constant, or is it defined by an explanation based on a set of facts that are most of the time constant?

Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
- HorrorVacui
- Beer drinker and freethinker
- Member
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #39 - March 25, 2010, 10:00 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on March 25, 2010, 08:08 PM
As far as I understand it the laws are well defined but they predict a certain amount of randomness in any experimental results. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is probably the most famous example.

Yes exactly.
It is important to understand that the uncertainty is a property of the particle itself, it is NOT randomness because of the measurement (through an error of measurement for example). This means no matter how exactly you theoretically could measure, it is not possible to determine two properties like velocity or position of a particle simultaneously with a high accuracy. As a fact, at small scale, nature becomes more and more indeterminable.
Einstein doubted the results and thought that the theory is actually incomplete and that there are hidden variables, but it was (along with other scientists) also he himself who proved that there are no hidden variables and that the indeterminism at small scale is part of a natural law, a universal property of all particles. His doubts once led to the quote 'god doesn't play dice' which is often quote mined and misinterpreted by religious nuts.
- AisaLagtaHAI
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #40 - March 26, 2010, 11:43 PM

I'm a psych major. it is a real science, if something isn't reliable, it's usually referred to it as being wrong or bias.

Closets after closets
- Tommy
- Let me feel your butt
- Ex-Muslim
- The Ass Patter
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #41 - March 27, 2010, 04:35 AM

Quote from: Tommy on March 25, 2010, 08:33 PM
So this makes me wonder, in Science is a theory defined by an explanation based on a set of facts that are always constant, or is it defined by an explanation based on a set of facts that are most of the time constant?

Would someone answer this? I'm very interested.

Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
- panoptic
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #42 - March 27, 2010, 05:23 AM

"I regard it as trivial that one cannot, in the range of atomic magnitudes, make predictions with any degree of precision, and I think that theory cannot be fabricated out of the results of observation, but that it can only be invented."

Einstein^

"I don’t know of any major theory that has been advanced just on the basis of experiment. The theory always came first ... the theory then makes predictions, which can then be tested by observation."

Stephen Hawking^

"...every imperfection in man is a bond with heaven..." - Karl Marx
- HorrorVacui
- Beer drinker and freethinker
- Member
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #43 - March 27, 2010, 10:32 AM

Quote from: Tommy on March 25, 2010, 08:33 PM
So this makes me wonder, in Science is a theory defined by an explanation based on a set of facts that are always constant, or is it defined by an explanation based on a set of facts that are most of the time constant?

What exactly do you mean with fact... the phenomenon/the circumstances of the phenomenon which should be explained by the theory?
However, a theory cannot ignore when an observed phenomenon is inconstant. It usually points to an explanation which is incomplete, and/or that the observation is not accurate enough, that there is 'something else' you have to find.
- HorrorVacui
- Beer drinker and freethinker
- Member
- offline
Re: Do you believe Psychology can be referred to as a real Science?
Reply #44 - March 27, 2010, 11:05 AM

Quote from: panoptic on March 27, 2010, 05:23 AM
"I regard it as trivial that one cannot, in the range of atomic magnitudes, make predictions with any degree of precision, and I think that theory cannot be fabricated out of the results of observation, but that it can only be invented."

Einstein^

"I don’t know of any major theory that has been advanced just on the basis of experiment. The theory always came first ... the theory then makes predictions, which can then be tested by observation."

Stephen Hawking^

But it nevertheless starts with an observation, with a phenomenon you want to explain. Einstein and Hawking are (very) theoretical physicists who trust(ed) the consistency of mathematical logic. Some experimental physicists might argue that basing a theory on theoretical derivation only would tempt to ignore details, that 'too perfect' equations might suggest an already complete and correct understanding.
Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »