6 ms·

We act like psychology was ever a legitimate science in the first place...

rayiner 14y ago
Cognitive psychology is quite legitimate. You should read some of Kahneman work. He's one of the pioneers in putting both psychology and economics on a firm empirical footing.
aggie 14y ago
Psychology is a broad field with many subfields. Some areas are harder sciences than others (psychobiology/physiology, sensation and perception, neuroscience, some cognitive science, etc.), and some are admittedly very hand-wavy (emotion, personality, just about anything Freud said, etc.), but to dismiss all of psychological science as illegitimate is to ignore a tremendous amount of progress in understanding and human well-being that has come in the past century.
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  "hand-wavy ... just about anything Freud said" - There's the issue: In pop science and public perception, psychology is nearly 100% Freud (but luckily, this is changing). Public perception doesn't matter much for research in the field, but it doesn't help credibility.
- eavc 14y ago
  "emotion, personality, just about anything Freud said, etc." Emotion and personality are valid subjects of scientific study as well. There has been a lot of unscientific opinion on those subjects (Freud being a good example), but that doesn't mean there isn't good science done there as well.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Emotion and personality are valid subjects of scientific study as well. Only if experimental results can be obtained using objective scientific methods, with control groups and strict experimental protocols, and only if the results can be successfully replicated. In other words, they cannot be studied scientifically. That's the meaning of the linked article: no replication. The article doesn't say such studies can be replicated, it discusses how to deal with the fact that they cannot.
    - eavc 14y ago
      You're begging the question. It absolutely is possible to have well-designed studies that address these topics. It's how we know anything about depression, anxiety, happiness, motivation, etc. etc.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > You're begging the question. No, I am addressing the question, which is whether present psychological research is or is not scientific. > It absolutely is possible to have well-designed studies that address these topics. Not ethically, no -- not possible. Prospective double-blind studies are virtually unheard of in psychology because of ethical issues. > It's how we know anything about depression, anxiety, happiness, motivation, etc. etc. Yes, true, which is why, in a scientific sense, we don't know anything about these topics. For example, it has recently been determined by way of a meta-analysis that the many antidepressant studies, taken as a whole, contradict each other, and the conclusion is that antidepressants don't work: Title: "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration": Link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circuits http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circ... A quote: "Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance." In layman's language, "there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that antidepressants actually do anything." The above study did something quite clever -- it combined studies that the drug industry published, with studies that were paid for and conducted but then suppressed. The outcome for this combination, i.e. all such studies, is that there is no meaningful statistical difference between an antidepressant and a placebo.
        eavc 14y ago
        >Not ethically, no -- not possible. Prospective double-blind studies are virtually unheard of in psychology because of ethical issues. Why do you believe this to be the only valid form of scientific study? Do you hold all disciplines to this standard? >Yes, true, which is why, in a scientific sense, we don't know anything about these topics. We know that certain assessments reliably indicate the presence of depression. We know certain conditions reliably induce depression. We know certain therapies reliably relieve depression. We know certain risk factors lead to greater likelihood of depression. >For example, it has recently been determined by way of a meta-analysis that the many antidepressant studies, taken as a whole, contradict each other, and the conclusion is that antidepressants don't work. >In layman's language, "there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that antidepressants actually do anything." Can you explain to me how science can decide one way or another on matters concerning depression if such things are inscrutable to the scientific method?
- lutusp 14y ago
  You're missing an important structural difference between psychology and truly scientific fields like physics. The difference is that scientific fields are united by theories that define the entire the field, and that inform all work in the field. If a particle physicist discovers something basic in his own specialty, it affects all of physics -- for example, the mass of neutrinos or the presence or absence of a Higgs boson. Cosmologists must pay attention to particle physics, even though particle physics and cosmology would seem to be spectacularly dissimilar. Such a scientific theory is a two-way street. If cosmology comes up with something like dark matter or dark energy, based on solid observation but not explained, this affects particle physics, and work begins immediately to explain what has only been described. The reason is that the central scientific theory, that defines physics, also unites it. Psychology doesn't have such a theory -- there is no overarching theory that unites the 53 subfields recognized by the APA, which consequently operate independently of each other and of any serious concern about theoretical implications. So when you say that there is real science taking place in some of psychology's subfields, you're absolutely right. But if someone wants to imply that this means psychology is a science in the same way that physics or biology are sciences, they're absolutely wrong. > to dismiss all of psychological science as illegitimate is to ignore a tremendous amount of progress in understanding and human well-being that has come in the past century. When Michelson and Morley falsified the ether theory in 1887, every living physicist knew exactly what that result meant -- it pulled the rug from under electromagnetic theory and left it unexplained. No one tried to say, "but those other physicists are still doing good work." That's not how science works. I will know psychology as a field has reached the threshold of science when psychologists courageously propose a central, unifying, falsifiable theory, amenable to practical test that, if it fails, invalidates the entire field. And I won't hold my breath for that development. Physics has such a theory. Biology has such a theory. Geology has one. Any of those theories can be tested -- indeed, is regularly tested --and the failure to falsify those theories is the only reason for the standing of those fields as sciences. Science is not scientists working in isolation, in a theoretical vacuum, on studies that cannot be replicated, as with psychology. Science is instead the building of a defining theoretical structure, constructed on a scaffolding of evidence. > and human well-being that has come in the past century. That claim is completely falsified by the recovered memory therapy debacle of the 1990s, which singlehandedly erased any public goodwill toward the field of psychology and sowed an atmosphere of distrust that will require many years to dissipate. And recovered memory therapy is just one of many examples in recent times that reveal the danger of not shaping a guiding theory that simultaneously informs research and controls the behavior of clinicians.
intended 14y ago
As pointed out, there are a lot of subsections within the whole. Skinner and Pavlov quantified pretty important systems and heuristics your grey matter works on, and are directly responsible for the underlying systems being applied in Zynga - heck - ALL video games. Take a lot of psych as trying to figure out which underlying subsytems are active when people make decisions. Even Freud's understanding that most of human calculation occurs in the subconscious was a fundamental jump forward for humanity - and IMO, it put a stop to the belief of rationalty which underpinned a good part of the enlightenment. (bit hard to encourage people to be rational when their wet ware isn't capable of handling it.) Yes at the same time it can be very handwavy - and some of their best measurements are of dynamic systems in flux.

Cognitive psychology is quite legitimate. You should read some of Kahneman work. He's one of the pioneers in putting both psychology and economics on a firm empirical footing.

aggie 14y ago

Psychology is a broad field with many subfields. Some areas are harder sciences than others (psychobiology/physiology, sensation and perception, neuroscience, some cognitive science, etc.), and some are admittedly very hand-wavy (emotion, personality, just about anything Freud said, etc.), but to dismiss all of psychological science as illegitimate is to ignore a tremendous amount of progress in understanding and human well-being that has come in the past century.

pgeorgi 14y ago
"hand-wavy ... just about anything Freud said" - There's the issue: In pop science and public perception, psychology is nearly 100% Freud (but luckily, this is changing). Public perception doesn't matter much for research in the field, but it doesn't help credibility.
eavc 14y ago
"emotion, personality, just about anything Freud said, etc." Emotion and personality are valid subjects of scientific study as well. There has been a lot of unscientific opinion on those subjects (Freud being a good example), but that doesn't mean there isn't good science done there as well.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Emotion and personality are valid subjects of scientific study as well. Only if experimental results can be obtained using objective scientific methods, with control groups and strict experimental protocols, and only if the results can be successfully replicated. In other words, they cannot be studied scientifically. That's the meaning of the linked article: no replication. The article doesn't say such studies can be replicated, it discusses how to deal with the fact that they cannot.
  - eavc 14y ago
    You're begging the question. It absolutely is possible to have well-designed studies that address these topics. It's how we know anything about depression, anxiety, happiness, motivation, etc. etc.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > You're begging the question. No, I am addressing the question, which is whether present psychological research is or is not scientific. > It absolutely is possible to have well-designed studies that address these topics. Not ethically, no -- not possible. Prospective double-blind studies are virtually unheard of in psychology because of ethical issues. > It's how we know anything about depression, anxiety, happiness, motivation, etc. etc. Yes, true, which is why, in a scientific sense, we don't know anything about these topics. For example, it has recently been determined by way of a meta-analysis that the many antidepressant studies, taken as a whole, contradict each other, and the conclusion is that antidepressants don't work: Title: "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration": Link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circuits http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circ... A quote: "Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance." In layman's language, "there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that antidepressants actually do anything." The above study did something quite clever -- it combined studies that the drug industry published, with studies that were paid for and conducted but then suppressed. The outcome for this combination, i.e. all such studies, is that there is no meaningful statistical difference between an antidepressant and a placebo.
      - eavc 14y ago
        >Not ethically, no -- not possible. Prospective double-blind studies are virtually unheard of in psychology because of ethical issues. Why do you believe this to be the only valid form of scientific study? Do you hold all disciplines to this standard? >Yes, true, which is why, in a scientific sense, we don't know anything about these topics. We know that certain assessments reliably indicate the presence of depression. We know certain conditions reliably induce depression. We know certain therapies reliably relieve depression. We know certain risk factors lead to greater likelihood of depression. >For example, it has recently been determined by way of a meta-analysis that the many antidepressant studies, taken as a whole, contradict each other, and the conclusion is that antidepressants don't work. >In layman's language, "there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that antidepressants actually do anything." Can you explain to me how science can decide one way or another on matters concerning depression if such things are inscrutable to the scientific method?
lutusp 14y ago
You're missing an important structural difference between psychology and truly scientific fields like physics. The difference is that scientific fields are united by theories that define the entire the field, and that inform all work in the field. If a particle physicist discovers something basic in his own specialty, it affects all of physics -- for example, the mass of neutrinos or the presence or absence of a Higgs boson. Cosmologists must pay attention to particle physics, even though particle physics and cosmology would seem to be spectacularly dissimilar. Such a scientific theory is a two-way street. If cosmology comes up with something like dark matter or dark energy, based on solid observation but not explained, this affects particle physics, and work begins immediately to explain what has only been described. The reason is that the central scientific theory, that defines physics, also unites it. Psychology doesn't have such a theory -- there is no overarching theory that unites the 53 subfields recognized by the APA, which consequently operate independently of each other and of any serious concern about theoretical implications. So when you say that there is real science taking place in some of psychology's subfields, you're absolutely right. But if someone wants to imply that this means psychology is a science in the same way that physics or biology are sciences, they're absolutely wrong. > to dismiss all of psychological science as illegitimate is to ignore a tremendous amount of progress in understanding and human well-being that has come in the past century. When Michelson and Morley falsified the ether theory in 1887, every living physicist knew exactly what that result meant -- it pulled the rug from under electromagnetic theory and left it unexplained. No one tried to say, "but those other physicists are still doing good work." That's not how science works. I will know psychology as a field has reached the threshold of science when psychologists courageously propose a central, unifying, falsifiable theory, amenable to practical test that, if it fails, invalidates the entire field. And I won't hold my breath for that development. Physics has such a theory. Biology has such a theory. Geology has one. Any of those theories can be tested -- indeed, is regularly tested --and the failure to falsify those theories is the only reason for the standing of those fields as sciences. Science is not scientists working in isolation, in a theoretical vacuum, on studies that cannot be replicated, as with psychology. Science is instead the building of a defining theoretical structure, constructed on a scaffolding of evidence. > and human well-being that has come in the past century. That claim is completely falsified by the recovered memory therapy debacle of the 1990s, which singlehandedly erased any public goodwill toward the field of psychology and sowed an atmosphere of distrust that will require many years to dissipate. And recovered memory therapy is just one of many examples in recent times that reveal the danger of not shaping a guiding theory that simultaneously informs research and controls the behavior of clinicians.

intended 14y ago

As pointed out, there are a lot of subsections within the whole. Skinner and Pavlov quantified pretty important systems and heuristics your grey matter works on, and are directly responsible for the underlying systems being applied in Zynga - heck - ALL video games. Take a lot of psych as trying to figure out which underlying subsytems are active when people make decisions. Even Freud's understanding that most of human calculation occurs in the subconscious was a fundamental jump forward for humanity - and IMO, it put a stop to the belief of rationalty which underpinned a good part of the enlightenment. (bit hard to encourage people to be rational when their wet ware isn't capable of handling it.) Yes at the same time it can be very handwavy - and some of their best measurements are of dynamic systems in flux.