Psychology is a pseudo-science

[G L Wilson]

Psychology. Do you think that you can analyse me with that blunt, little tool?

[Aubergine]

Psychology. Do you think that you can analyse me with that blunt, little tool?

This individual is undergoing a clear case of persecutory projection, the phallic object alluded to in question being his own!

[G L Wilson]

This individual is undergoing a clear case of persecutory projection, the phallic object alluded to in question being his own!

Inadequacy - wrong! My mind is my penis. I give no regard to the body.

[inbetween]

I'm no prefessional and I don't know you ... but you'd be surprised what psychology can find out and what patterns of behaveour there are... try to think about the relationship to your parents for a start... ödipus is everywhere.. (I was pretty surprised when I realised that for myself and my own mental development...) and if you don't 'cous your not interested that's just as well but as a matter of fact.. like al siences.. psychology finds the causes to the consequences we suffer from. like all other sinences.. it's all about cause and consequence..
whatsoever

[Delta40]

Psychology is theory. Calling it science gives it more credibility

[G L Wilson]

All science is bloody theory.

[Delta40]

then even psuedo science is too good a term

[G L Wilson]

then even psuedo science is too good a term

How about quackery?

[inbetween]

All science is bloody theory.

yep, and psychology is one of them...

only this and nothing more...

[Red-Headed]

"Psychology is a pseudo-science."

I'll go along with that one. Although many would level the same statement at quantum theory.

[G L Wilson]

"Psychology is a pseudo-science."

I'll go along with that one. Although many would level the same statement at quantum theory.

They could, and they would be wrong.

[DocHeart]

Psychology. Do you think that you can analyse me with that blunt, little tool?

There are, as it happens, very strong arguments supporting what you claim. Karl Popper, for one, spoke extensively (and compellingly) on how Psychology can choose to be unfalsifiable, and therefore untestable, and therefore should not be thought of as a scientific pursuit.

However, you bother with none of this. You merely put the matter across (and speak to your respondents) using a tone that can only provoke -- and not in a good way. Philosophical discussion is much more than being cocky and grumpy, and trying to blow everything apart with what you perceive as wit. You'll need to work much harder than that to be taken seriously.

Kind regards,
DH

[G L Wilson]

There are, as it happens, very strong arguments supporting what you claim. Karl Popper, for one, spoke extensively (and compellingly) on how Psychology can choose to be unfalsifiable, and therefore untestable, and therefore should not be thought of as a scientific pursuit.

However, you bother with none of this. You merely put the matter across (and speak to your respondents) using a tone that can only provoke -- and not in a good way. Philosophical discussion is much more than being cocky and grumpy, and trying to blow everything apart with what you perceive as wit. You'll need to work much harder than that to be taken seriously.

Kind regards,
DH

I agree.

[Red-Headed]

They could, and they would be wrong.

I tried reading the Copenhagen Interpretation, after a while I realised life was just too short & went down the pub ...

[MarkBastable]

Psychology. Do you think that you can analyse me with that blunt, little tool?

In your case, I don't think psychology is entirely necessary.

[G L Wilson]

In your case, I don't think psychology is entirely necessary.

I agree.

[Calidore]

Psychology is an imperfect science because, unlike medicine where you can look at the body and see the effects diseases and injuries have, the mind is closed to everyone outside it (and to some extent, to the people inside it also). That doesn't completely invalidate psychology, though; you just have to understand and acknowledge the limitations and do your best within them.

[Gladys]

Psychology is a pseudo-science

Experimental psychology seems to offer something genuinely worthwhile. Any experiment that's reproducible likely tells us something about life on the earth that is worth knowing.

If, in Milgram's infamous shock experiment, you were one of those that eventually electrocuted your fellow human being, you've learned something analytical about yourself that matters.


Psychology. Do you think that you can analyse me with that blunt, little tool?

The results, both your own and your friends, of a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test are rather fascinating. But a comprehensive analysis of you or me with current psychology is nothing but a quaint pipe dream.

[The Atheist]

Psychology is an imperfect science because, unlike medicine where you can look at the body and see the effects diseases and injuries have, the mind is closed to everyone outside it (and to some extent, to the people inside it also). That doesn't completely invalidate psychology, though; you just have to understand and acknowledge the limitations and do your best within them.

Wins.

[Red-Headed]

If, in Milgram's infamous shock experiment, you were one of those that eventually electrocuted your fellow human being, you've learned something analytical about yourself that matters.

That could be true, but there was an inherent bias in Milgram's experiment as I see it & I believe that he presumed the results before he actually got them. The whole experiment was oddly contrived as well.

[Arrowni]

Human sciences aren't science.

[Calidore]

Human sciences aren't science.

Could you elaborate?

[Delta40]

What about the Stanford Prison experiment carried out by phillip zimbardo? Do you think that was contrived in any way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[G L Wilson]

What about the Stanford Prison experiment carried out by phillip zimbardo? Do you think that was contrived in any way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

In an artificial environment anything is possible.

[JuniperWoolf]

People feel hostile to the faculty because the idea that they're subjects to be studied and learned from creeps them out and makes them feel plain. Hate it if you want to, it doesn't matter.

[G L Wilson]

Psychology is a terminal disease, once contracted you have no hope.

[Gladys]

Healthy scepticism works like a vaccine though.

[Red-Headed]

Healthy scepticism works like a vaccine though.

Until you become immune to it, I suppose.

[OrphanPip]

Psychology in the vein of psychoanalysis like Freud and Lacan is not science, but there is a reason why courses that cover those people are generally taught within the faculty of arts.

Modern psychology encompasses human physiology, neurology, and involves experimental investigation of cognitive questions. To say that psychology is not a valid science is to say that human cognition is somehow beyond examination with the scientific method.

The only real problem is that psychology is a term applied to separate philosophical and scientific fields, which share historical roots, but are distinct in contemporary academia.

[G L Wilson]

Psychology in the vein of psychoanalysis like Freud and Lacan is not science, but there is a reason why courses that cover those people are generally taught within the faculty of arts.

Modern psychology encompasses human physiology, neurology, and involves experimental investigation of cognitive questions. To say that psychology is not a valid science is to say that human cognition is somehow beyond examination with the scientific method.

The only real problem is that psychology is a term applied to separate philosophical and scientific fields, which share historical roots, but are distinct in contemporary academia.

Psychology is not empirical.

[JuniperWoolf]

Psychology is not empirical.

Okay, I'm just going to come right out and ask. G L, do you ever take it upon yourself to read someone else's post thoroughly and consider their stance before responding (as is the common practice in human interaction), or do you just glance over their words and then post one of your random, pseudo-profound one-liners? What are we supposed to do with that, you're impossible to talk to and yet you talk incessantly. It's not a huge deal, it's just that it's a little weird. It's almost as though you don't think, you just have this stockpile of one-liners that you toss out at random intervals in lieu of having actual conversations.

[G L Wilson]

Okay, I'm just going to come right out and ask. G L, do you ever take it upon yourself to read someone else's post thoroughly and consider their stance before responding (as is the common practice in human interaction), or do you just glance over their words and then post one of your random, pseudo-profound one-liners? What are we supposed to do with that, you're impossible to talk to and yet you talk incessantly. It's not a huge deal, it's just that it's a little weird. It's almost as though you don't think, you just have this stockpile of one-liners that you toss out at random intervals in lieu of having actual conversations.

Psychobabble is no answer for a clear answer.

[JuniperWoolf]

...What? *insert exasperated sigh here*

[G L Wilson]

...What? *insert exasperated sigh here*

You are babbling!

[JuniperWoolf]

You are babbling!

My questions were legitimate. Why do you always post single-sentences? Why do you post inflammatory comments and then refuse to discuss them at length or elaborate on your strange generalizations? Why do you post so often, especially considering that your posts always lack substance? If it was just once in a while it wouldn't strike me as strange, but you've made over a thousand ridonkulous comments and barely any of them have been even remotely conversational.

[G L Wilson]

My questions were legitimate. Why do you always post single-sentences? Why do you post inflammatory comments and then refuse to discuss them at length or elaborate on your strange generalizations? Why do you post so often, especially considering that your posts always lack substance? If it was just once in a while it wouldn't strike me as strange, but you've made over a thousand ridonkulous comments and barely any of them have been even remotely conversational.

Oh, what's wrong with me? Of course, I am ridonkulous!

[JuniperWoolf]

Fun word, eh?

[G L Wilson]

Fun word, eh?

Hmmm.

[Gladys]

Psychology is not empirical.

Isn't experimental psychology empirical in the same sense as epidemiological (population) studies of health and diet are? And about as reliable?

If so, the trouble is that many, many studies of human behaviour will be needed to untangle a maze of confounding factors on just about every issue of interest.

As for psychology that is theoretical, I prefer Holy Scripture.

[MarkBastable]

Juniper's questions are valid.



Oh, what's wrong with me?

So's that one.

[ralfyman]

The human condition is very complex, which is why we have not only psychology but also philosophy and other ideas.

[Arrowni]

Could you elaborate?


Psychology works in speech, and semantics are not an "real". By choosing it's object, science becomes partial, by choosing it's object psychology is still out to get a partial idea of something that's partial already. No science who depends on speech as it's object of study it's truly positive.

[JuniperWoolf]

Psychology works in speech, and semantics are not an "real". By choosing it's object, science becomes partial, by choosing it's object psychology is still out to get a partial idea of something that's partial already. No science who depends on speech as it's object of study it's truly positive.

Psychology only operates in the realm of speech? That's not even remotely true. What about BEHAVIOURism?

[OrphanPip]

Psychology only operates in the realm of speech? That's not even remotely true. What about BEHAVIOURism?

I'm reminded of an acquaintance of mine, who views herself as an evolutionary psychologist (now often termed human behavioral ecology), her research centered on the behaviors of a tribe of Chimpanzees.

Human behavior is increasingly looked at in animal behavioral ecology courses, attempting to understand and explain human behavior through the lens ecology and natural selection.

The fact of the matter is that there is no difference between research on animal cognition and behavior, and human cognition and behavior. We just like to give separate names to things that focus on humans, which is useful in so far that it helps to organize information and we tend to often be looking for human specific information.

[Arrowni]

Psychology only operates in the realm of speech? That's not even remotely true. What about BEHAVIOURism?


Keep in mind that I'm including History as a science of speech, despite the fact it's not only on words to build its premises. You could argue that psychology and social phenomena are tied to biology in one way or another, which only makes the focus of the science even more transparent in its artificiality when it comes to propose. In the case of behaviourism, observation is not the issue as much of the assumptions and conclusions that are more or less defined by your own speech.

I suppose the most glaring problem with human sciences is the concept of propose, once you assume a goal, you've transformed the speech you're analyzing in one way or another. This is least drastic with hard sciences because they produce a less aimed speech most of the time.

You still pose an interesting question, but I'd assume that the concept of propose, aligned with the use of behavior as an external communication -with their surroundings- and its closeness with biology its pointing towards a conflicting definition. We may be using different concepts of psychology.

[OrphanPip]

Keep in mind that I'm including History as a science of speech, despite the fact it's not only on words to build its premises. You could argue that psychology and social phenomena are tied to biology in one way or another, which only makes the focus of the science even more transparent in its artificiality when it comes to propose. In the case of behaviourism, observation is not the issue as much of the assumptions and conclusions that are more or less defined by your own speech.

This seems to me to be empty sophistry. What is "transparent in its artificiality" even mean. Science is defined by its methodology. If something is approached from the sense that its hypotheses are falsifiable, and that the hypotheses must be tested through reproducible experimentation, then it is science.



I suppose the most glaring problem with human sciences is the concept of propose, once you assume a goal, you've transformed the speech you're analyzing in one way or another. This is least drastic with hard sciences because they produce a less aimed speech most of the time.

No this is pomo babble. First of all no experimentation can go forward without purpose. You don't just throw **** into a pot and see what happens to determine chemical principles. One always goes out with a clear hypotheses to be tested. What makes the science reliable is it being open to challenge, revision and independent corroboration. A "less aimed speech" seems nothing more than jerryrigging some arbitrary conception of reliability.

[Arrowni]

I apologize if you don't like the way I talk, I'm actually a bit distracted while writing. Do you want me to explain myself or you don't care about my argument? (I don't mean to be rude, but it can save us both some time)