4 ms·

> If you're trying to say psychology is not an exact science I agree. It's not a science at all. Sciences make observations, then craft generalizing theories t

by lutusp 13y ago

> If you're trying to say psychology is not an exact science I agree. It's not a science at all. Sciences make observations, then craft generalizing theories to explain the observations, then test the theories in unrelated contexts, then discard those theories that fail. This is certainly not how psychology works. In psychology, it's commonplace to see a therapy for a disease whose existence hasn't yet been established, or that was brought into being by a secret vote rather than a microscope (as was true during the DSM-5 editorial process). Am I exaggerating the requirements for real science? Let's perform a thought experiment to see. Let's say we can have science without theories, only with observations, as in modern psychology. Here goes ... Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just like a psychologist. Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no? Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture, and notice that the same thing is wrong with psychology — all description, no explanation, no established principles on which different psychologists agree, no effort to build consensus, and no unifying theories. > You can't use psychology to make exact predictions of how people will behave however the more you learn about psychology the better you get at figuring out people and make a educated guess what motivates them. Only if you're suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias. You need to understand that psychology is undergoing a major upheaval eight now, mostly because of improvements in neuroscience that suggest neuroscience will eventually replace psychology, in the same way that astronomy replaced astrology in the 17th century.

disgruntledphd2 13y ago
You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension. Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology Psychiatry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry Note the not to be confused with introduction on Wikipedia. They are quite different, and while I agree that DSM-5 was a disgrace, that was somewhat inevitable given the commercial pressures involved. Its worth noting that I agree with your major point, but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension. Both are studies of the mind. Psychiatrists are psychologists with an M.D. degree. Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology Quote: "an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors" Psychiatry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry Quote: "the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders." See the word "mental" in both definitions? Neither studies the brain, neither is scientific, and the distinction between them is more a matter of history than topic. I ask that you think about what you're saying. If human psychology were a science, then its two major subfields, psychiatry and psychology (there are actually 54, but never mind), would be looked on as intimately related to human psychology and to each other. Would you argue that cosmology and particle physics aren't related to each other because they study different things, i.e. one studies the universe at the largest possible scale and the other at the smallest? Most scientists would disagree because these two fields rely on physics and physical theory for their scientific standing. > but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology. False. Both psychiatry and psychology rely on the DSM as a diagnostic guide. Link: http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm Title: "DSM" Quote: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States ... It can be used by a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors. " > I agree with your major point, but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology. On the contrary, it applies to both, because both psychiatry and psychology depend on the DSM's imagined authority for diagnosis and treatment guidance. If the DSM were to suddenly disappear, psychologists would have no therapeutic guidebook. That wouldn't stop them, of course, but it would be disrupting and embarrassing. If human psychology were a science, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because psychiatry and psychology would be looked on as branches of a science with more similarities than differences, just as with cosmology and particle physics.
  - 13y ago

by lutusp 13y ago

disgruntledphd2 13y ago

You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension. Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology Psychiatry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry Note the not to be confused with introduction on Wikipedia. They are quite different, and while I agree that DSM-5 was a disgrace, that was somewhat inevitable given the commercial pressures involved. Its worth noting that I agree with your major point, but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology.

lutusp 13y ago
> You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension. Both are studies of the mind. Psychiatrists are psychologists with an M.D. degree. Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology Quote: "an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors" Psychiatry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry Quote: "the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders." See the word "mental" in both definitions? Neither studies the brain, neither is scientific, and the distinction between them is more a matter of history than topic. I ask that you think about what you're saying. If human psychology were a science, then its two major subfields, psychiatry and psychology (there are actually 54, but never mind), would be looked on as intimately related to human psychology and to each other. Would you argue that cosmology and particle physics aren't related to each other because they study different things, i.e. one studies the universe at the largest possible scale and the other at the smallest? Most scientists would disagree because these two fields rely on physics and physical theory for their scientific standing. > but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology. False. Both psychiatry and psychology rely on the DSM as a diagnostic guide. Link: http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm Title: "DSM" Quote: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States ... It can be used by a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors. " > I agree with your major point, but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology. On the contrary, it applies to both, because both psychiatry and psychology depend on the DSM's imagined authority for diagnosis and treatment guidance. If the DSM were to suddenly disappear, psychologists would have no therapeutic guidebook. That wouldn't stop them, of course, but it would be disrupting and embarrassing. If human psychology were a science, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because psychiatry and psychology would be looked on as branches of a science with more similarities than differences, just as with cosmology and particle physics.
- 13y ago