6 ms·

Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). They use the scientific method, bu

Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). They use the scientific method, but when dealing with personalities and human behavior there are plenty of "dead ends" that cannot be reduced or described further.

Sharlin 8y ago
That depends entirely on your definition of "science". Out of the fields of research usually bundled under the category "social sciences" psychology is certainly among those closest to "natural sciences"—and there's certainly lot of interdisciplinary research that bridges the gap.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  The "definition of science" isnt up for debate.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    In that case your original assertion is trivially wrong.
    - mikec3010 8y ago
      Depends entirely on your definition of "wrong".
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        The definition of "wrong" isn't up for debate. b^) Well, it seems like a simpler concept than "science", anyway.
- gt_ 8y ago
  I really get where you’re coming from, but you’re far too ahead of yourself; and most importantly your assertion is very dangerous. It may well be popular among your peers, but history will surely drown your confidence in shame. Why? Entropy. There’s a spectre that haunts Western pyshology which allows for the set of thus considered “scientific” checkboxes to be marked, which are sufficient for the physical sciences. But, physically speaking, the physical sciences are child’s play compared with the material subject of psychology, which is fairly undebatable. On the other hand, the same could be said for the physical sciences at certain points in time, and still to say in particular focuses. So what’s my point?? Psychology as it has so far been instituted in the western world cannot observe, define, or much less control the entropy it contends with. Critical theory, political theory, economics, poetics, cultural studies; truly the entire fields of humanities have a more comprehensive understanding of this entropy than the field of psychology does. Why? Because it cannot. It’s too much. Psychology can “scientific method” it’s heart out all it wants, but it remains to be seen that this method is even the best we’ve got. Mind you again that psychology cannot control for social entropy, and what but it can (debatable) falls off a cliff outside of the lab. When we speak of social entropy, we cannot ignore politics; the scorpion’s tail of the entire effort which understandably ignores an effort to define either entropy or control but instead blindly accepts the human environment of contemporary ‘normal’ as the aim for dictating constants. This is of course ridiculous, and doing otherwise would be no less so. As such, it’s hard to blame the folks trying, but should be far easier to see how moot their effort is. The humanities has achieved a far more enlightened critique of the field of psychology than the field itself has even begun to. Sociology embraces the entropy whole-hearted and as such admits doubt and is politically marginalized (or privatized) accordingly. The approach of psychology in these respects is again understandable, but if the physical sciences were accused of something at all similar, we would all be up in arms. On a separate note, the measurable issues with the institutional politics undermining western psychology are however similar to those at play in psysical sciences, but the vaguaries and innate necessity of ignorance in pursuing the task serve as multipliers to corruption. Where to even begin? It’s just too much. To conclude, the effort in calling is certainly worthy and noble. But, the effort in practice is terribly fraught; deserves loads more criticism and caution than it receives. If the scientific method could be performed in scope (as one might say it is in the humanities) western psychogy remains in hypothetical stages. There’s cause for a few toasts, but not a celebration.
justin66 8y ago
> Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). Computer science is not "directly traceable back to physics."
- tpm 8y ago
  Well, time and space constraints are quite prominent in CS, and both are very physical.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- melq 8y ago
  My interpretation of what he means by 'traceable back to physics' is that in most so-called 'hard sciences' (biology, chemistry, computation etc) the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics. Assuming I'm not off-base there, I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology.
  - justin66 8y ago
    > the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics The theoretical parts of computer science that do not get broken out academically into separate engineering disciplines (wherein physics is quite relevant) are really just branches of mathematics, without any physics involved. > I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology. I don't know a huge amount about psychology but that sounds fair. Psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience all inform one another. I don't think it's quite accurate (or perhaps it's just needlessly pejorative) to suggest, as the OP does, that psychology has hit a "dead end" when the phenomenon under study requires the application of psychiatry or neuroscience in order to be more fully understood. On the contrary, it sounds like an indication that the psychologists might have discovered something interesting.

Sharlin 8y ago

That depends entirely on your definition of "science". Out of the fields of research usually bundled under the category "social sciences" psychology is certainly among those closest to "natural sciences"—and there's certainly lot of interdisciplinary research that bridges the gap.

mikec3010 8y ago
The "definition of science" isnt up for debate.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  In that case your original assertion is trivially wrong.
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    Depends entirely on your definition of "wrong".
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      The definition of "wrong" isn't up for debate. b^) Well, it seems like a simpler concept than "science", anyway.
gt_ 8y ago
I really get where you’re coming from, but you’re far too ahead of yourself; and most importantly your assertion is very dangerous. It may well be popular among your peers, but history will surely drown your confidence in shame. Why? Entropy. There’s a spectre that haunts Western pyshology which allows for the set of thus considered “scientific” checkboxes to be marked, which are sufficient for the physical sciences. But, physically speaking, the physical sciences are child’s play compared with the material subject of psychology, which is fairly undebatable. On the other hand, the same could be said for the physical sciences at certain points in time, and still to say in particular focuses. So what’s my point?? Psychology as it has so far been instituted in the western world cannot observe, define, or much less control the entropy it contends with. Critical theory, political theory, economics, poetics, cultural studies; truly the entire fields of humanities have a more comprehensive understanding of this entropy than the field of psychology does. Why? Because it cannot. It’s too much. Psychology can “scientific method” it’s heart out all it wants, but it remains to be seen that this method is even the best we’ve got. Mind you again that psychology cannot control for social entropy, and what but it can (debatable) falls off a cliff outside of the lab. When we speak of social entropy, we cannot ignore politics; the scorpion’s tail of the entire effort which understandably ignores an effort to define either entropy or control but instead blindly accepts the human environment of contemporary ‘normal’ as the aim for dictating constants. This is of course ridiculous, and doing otherwise would be no less so. As such, it’s hard to blame the folks trying, but should be far easier to see how moot their effort is. The humanities has achieved a far more enlightened critique of the field of psychology than the field itself has even begun to. Sociology embraces the entropy whole-hearted and as such admits doubt and is politically marginalized (or privatized) accordingly. The approach of psychology in these respects is again understandable, but if the physical sciences were accused of something at all similar, we would all be up in arms. On a separate note, the measurable issues with the institutional politics undermining western psychology are however similar to those at play in psysical sciences, but the vaguaries and innate necessity of ignorance in pursuing the task serve as multipliers to corruption. Where to even begin? It’s just too much. To conclude, the effort in calling is certainly worthy and noble. But, the effort in practice is terribly fraught; deserves loads more criticism and caution than it receives. If the scientific method could be performed in scope (as one might say it is in the humanities) western psychogy remains in hypothetical stages. There’s cause for a few toasts, but not a celebration.

justin66 8y ago

> Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). Computer science is not "directly traceable back to physics."

tpm 8y ago
Well, time and space constraints are quite prominent in CS, and both are very physical.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
melq 8y ago
My interpretation of what he means by 'traceable back to physics' is that in most so-called 'hard sciences' (biology, chemistry, computation etc) the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics. Assuming I'm not off-base there, I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology.
- justin66 8y ago
  > the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics The theoretical parts of computer science that do not get broken out academically into separate engineering disciplines (wherein physics is quite relevant) are really just branches of mathematics, without any physics involved. > I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology. I don't know a huge amount about psychology but that sounds fair. Psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience all inform one another. I don't think it's quite accurate (or perhaps it's just needlessly pejorative) to suggest, as the OP does, that psychology has hit a "dead end" when the phenomenon under study requires the application of psychiatry or neuroscience in order to be more fully understood. On the contrary, it sounds like an indication that the psychologists might have discovered something interesting.