Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Natalcya Katla]

It is psychology. Psychology is a field of study, not a single unified research paradigm. When neuroscientists use physiological methods to study brain activity, they are doing psychological research (as well as biological research). Since the mind does not exist separately from the body (unless you are superstitious), studying the mind by observing the body (the brain and the rest of the nervous system in particular) is a perfectly valid approach.

I'm a bit puzzled by your criterium that science must be able to "prove truth". No science can conclusively prove anything to be absolutely true, except perhaps for abstract mathematics, if you consider that to be a separate science of its own. They can prove things to a degree where doubting them essentially becomes silly, sure. But so can conceivably psychology, once research in the field has progressed far enough. It is still a comparatively young science, and the fact that it hasn't progressed as far as other sciences have yet, does not make it unscientific. It simply means it hasn't yet been able to formulate a theory which is as accurate and comprehensive as the theories prevalent in other scientific fields.

Newtonian physics were "only indicative of truth" when compared to Einsteinian physics, but it would be silly to claim that physics only became a science with Einstein. Even Einstein's theory of relativity may have to be revised in some ways in the future, to make physics even more indicative of truth. It's all part of how science progresses.

As for sociology, the big problem there as I see it is that it seems unable to progress beyond the level of rudimentary science unless ethical considerations are brushed aside. That's in some cases true of psychology too, of course, but on a smaller scale.

[scagga]

No, it's not psychology. It's biochemistry and biology. Merely related to psychology. Psychology is a faux science simply because it's theories can't be proven right, merely wrong. Yes, you have to learn a bit of biochemistry and biology to properly grasp psychology, and yes there's 'these theories fit for the most part, barring few exceptions' within it that allows psychology to be a reliable field of medicine.

However, it's still not a science, as long as it's theories and methodology can't be proven to be 'truth'. Merely indicative of truth. There's a certain 'Purity of science' XKCD strip that's very good at comparing the various fields. Psychology and even worse, Sociology lies somewhere on the iffy side of the scale.

Point of information:

Psychology is not a field of medicine. You do not need a medical degree to be a psychologist.

Psychiatry is a field of medicine. You need a medical degree to be a psychiatrist.

[Lillith Blackheart]

Katla handled what I was saying, yay! And yes, Neuroscience is Psychology. More importantly they overlap, as both are required fields in either educational Major. You can't have one without the other.

Also wanted to say:

it would be silly to claim that physics only became a science with Einstein

To bring up something important that will be unpopular, you can't say it became a science with Einstein because Einstein was an absolutely horrible scientist! He was a brilliant philosopher, but a horrible scientist.

No, it's not psychology. It's biochemistry and biology. Merely related to psychology. Psychology is a faux science simply because it's theories can't be proven right, merely wrong.

Er, that's kinda how science works. You don't prove a theory and it becomes a law. A theory becomes a law because people have been unable to prove it wrong. The entire point of the Scientific Method is not that you prove something to be true, it's that you continually attempt to prove it untrue, and if it survives all attempts, it is true.

Psychology is science because it follows Scientific Method. Sociology is the same way.

Yes, you have to learn a bit of biochemistry and biology to properly grasp psychology, and yes there's 'these theories fit for the most part, barring few exceptions' within it that allows psychology to be a reliable field of medicine.

As Scagga said, that's Psychiatry, which by the way is a bullshit field imho. But my opinion stems not from the field itself but from current-man's need to over-medicate.

However, it's still not a science, as long as it's theories and methodology can't be proven to be 'truth'. Merely indicative of truth. There's a certain 'Purity of science' XKCD strip that's very good at comparing the various fields. Psychology and even worse, Sociology lies somewhere on the iffy side of the scale.

Sigh. Science is a method. Science is a way of studying the world around you. Psychology and Sociology are Scientific. In fact most of them are more scientific than Climate Change.

That doesn't mean all of it is.

In every science there are good scientists and there are bad scientists. The fact that people use the bad scientists as evidence that Psychology and Sociology aren't science amuses me because they're specifically contrasting them with the good scientists of other fields.

There are good social scientists out there, and the work they do is just as scientific as Newton. Remember the model of Scientific Method is the primary driving force of what constitutes "Science", not whether or not something is proven "right" or "Wrong".

[Mizhara]

Never said it was unbreakable truth, what I said. It's just how I view it. Psychology and psychiatry (sociology as well) is just silly to me. Calling it a science gives it a credibility it doesn't deserve.

 

[Lillith Blackheart]

The problem I see is that you're then redefining what "Science" is.

Also, there's a whole lot going on in those fields that you may be unaware of. Large portions of it are hugely credible. It's a young science and so its bad scientists show more evidently. Remember that Galileo was imprisoned for the false sciences he was working on.

Every science has gone through this crap in its early history.

[Mizhara]

Yes, redefining them into my perspective, yes. It's not perfect, and it's not textbook definitions, but it's how I personally see it. May change my mind the day I see decent advantages to them.

[Lillith Blackheart]

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a pretty solid advantage. . .

Also our understanding of the human condition continues to grow. The thing I see that's the biggest problem (besides my aforementioned issue of seeing people redefine "Science") towards Social Sciences being viewed so negatively is two fold.

1. (This is the biggest) As with any science, there's a lot of bad science out there about it. Worse yet it is such a young science that it does not have piles of good science to outweigh the bad. It doesn't have Newtonian Physics, General and Special Relativity, Thermodynamics, and so on to sit Chaos Theory and Quantum Theory atop so that people will take it seriously. This causes people to mince the two concepts and since bad science is really bad and Good science doesn't get a lot of play unless you're reading the science journals, they think it's all bad (also there are human tendencies in how we store information that enhance this).

2. Social Sciences aren't about inanimate objects or the universe around them. They're about people. They're about you and me. And people don't like that. They don't like science being about studying them, and so they will discount those sciences because they say things about them. Of course people will deny this one.

[scagga]

Katla handled what I was saying, yay! And yes, Neuroscience is Psychology. More importantly they overlap, as both are required fields in either educational Major. You can't have one without the other.

Making an assertion that 'neuroscience is psychology' is like saying that 'history is politics', or 'politics is history' (see what I did there?).  Each involve the study of a different topic.

For instance, an understanding of neuroscience explains the pathways that lead to how someone appears the way they do when they are anxious (sweaty, tense, tachycardic, etc). Meanwhile, an understanding of psychology explains reasons why someone would be anxious.

If you then go to say Neuroscience is psychology or vice versa, then I do not see how you have reached your conclusion and ask for you to substantiate your viewpoint.

[Lillith Blackheart]

If you then go to say Neuroscience is psychology or vice versa, then I do not see how you have reached your conclusion and ask for you to substantiate your viewpoint.

I suppose the better way to put it would be that Psychology is a NeuroScience, in that a significant portion of Psychology requires acquiring, compiling, studying, and working with data that you refer to in this section as "NeuroScience".

A good example is mental disorders. The vast majority of this science is Psychology. The methodology for the study is Neuroscience.

I do not find the history/politics to be a direct comparison.

[scagga]

If you then go to say Neuroscience is psychology or vice versa, then I do not see how you have reached your conclusion and ask for you to substantiate your viewpoint.

I suppose the better way to put it would be that Psychology is a NeuroScience, in that a significant portion of Psychology requires acquiring, compiling, studying, and working with data that you refer to in this section as "NeuroScience".

A good example is mental disorders. The vast majority of this science is Psychology. The methodology for the study is Neuroscience.

I do not find the history/politics to be a direct comparison.

I find the history/politcs comparison appropriate because a good understanding of politics is frequently predicated by an appreciation of history. A good understanding of history will, to a degree, require a good understanding of politics.  The course of history has been greatly influenced by politics, and vice-versa.

If you believe that a significant amount of neuroscience needs to be understood in order to study psychology, I would disagree.  I would agree that a higher degree of neuroscience needs to be understood to practice psychiatry, because you'd need to understand structural abnormalities associated with disease, neurotransmitter-specific neural pathways associated with different behaviours and the pharmacology of different medications/poisons, etc.  

I don't see how psychology has a significant overlap that necessitates a good understanding of neuroscience. Psychology mostly deals with matters that do not have an organic basis. Psychiatry on the other hand, deals with behaviours that tend to have an organic basis.

[Lillith Blackheart]

As I was reading some quotage today, I wanted to address something about Science and proving things true.

We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities

That was Carl Sagan.