Psychology as a Science???!!!

[Philip]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015 ... nt-results

And just think of all society's many accepted "truths" based upon the assertions of psychology. Published papers? Validation? Truth? What, where?

[Nicki]

Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that most of the results could not be replicated given the complexity of the human mind. You don't think psychology's a science?

[Philip]

The problem with psychiatry and psychology is that they have long asserted various things as established fact without solid data and methodoligies to back it up. And so then pop culture and societal trends love to point various supposed truths as having been firmly established with many studies and data, to the point that such things often go unchallenged by most people. And people in media are often the lamest and most to blame for perpetuating so many pseudoscience myths. But, as we know, if you hear the same fictions long enough, most will begin to accept them as being true.

[PaulSacramento]

Psychology is not a science as we tend to think of science, physics for example.
The reason the science is highly regarded is because of the scientific method.
Science is observing nature, analyzing the data, coming to a hypothesis and then doing experimentation confirm that hypothesis.
Experiments must be conducted and their results verified and they must be repeatable and falsifiable:

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.[1]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[5][6] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]

The issue with physcology is that it is at the stage where astronomy was, for example, 1000 years ago perhaps ( maybe I am being to harsh with this comparison).
We don't know enough about the brain, much less the mind, to make concrete statements like we do in physics or biology for example.

[kowalskil]

Psychologists I know say they are scientists.

post edited by a moderator: propagation of own website is already mentioned in poster's signature

[HappyFlappyTheist]

Psychologists I know say they are scientists.

post edited by a moderator: propagation of own website is already mentioned in poster's signature

Psychologist are considered scientist; more specifically, they are "social scientist" like that of criminologist or sociologist. It is not considered a 'hard science' like physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, or mathematics (and I'd assume neurology would be the 'hard science' derivative of psychology).

Psychology rely's heavily upon statistics and spends a lot of time deriving hypothesis from data collected. They do seem to use a variant of the scientific method in that they can predict, explain -normally with a neurological backing- , and test their hypothesis. Even I, not being a huge fan of the soft science's, wouldn't discount psychology as I get the vibe that some do. It has explained, and accurately hypothesized, a fair amount of human behavior.
Statistics (obviously when obtained correctly) is a viable source of data to back testable hypothesis on.

Is this antipathy of psychology some express here due to the fields acceptance of 'worldly ideals' (such as transvestism or homosexuality)?