Is Psychology Considered a Pseudo-Science?

[sterproj]

It's a science.

It's a science more specifically a social science. That means that is less precise than math and physics but has more rigor than humanities.For example it uses statistics for research (SPSS - a famous software in use).What your should understand is that it's statements are true when we talk about groups but uncertain for individuals.

 

[JasonRox]

I'm reading about Psychology right now and I find it hard to believe it can be a pseudo-science.

I learn to use psychology in my daily life and it has be verified over and over again. I'm most specifically interested in social psychology, emotions and behaviour. I just started reading and read general stuff before and it truly is a fascinating field. I'll be done reading my first Psychology textbook in probably 2 weeks from now! I write down notes that I find important and will summarize them with my experiences in life as well as verifying them in a natural way.

I'm using what I learn to become more effective at communicating with people as well as helping people in discovering inner thoughts and such.

Note: Does anyone know any good Psychology forums?

 

[flyzeggs]

I'm a Psych major and I say PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE

Most psychologists like some evolutionary biologists, notably those in social, motivation and clinical come up with non-parsimonious, contradicting, "degenerative theories". Even just-so theories... :S Initially it was headed in the right direction, breaking complex behaviours down into reflexes and taking it from there. And now, accepting that consciousness is only the function of simultaneous cognitive processes, that can be broken down to the physiological level. The relatively young field of cognitive/behavioural neuroscience that has emerged is exciting, but it's principals are flawed. There's no strong philosophical foundation in it either. Science is not just making observations and drawing inferences. Over reliance on correlational models is not all that great, because it does not tell us anything about the reality of the situation. Psychologists are just good at making models that are often not terribly useful. How can you claim it's scientific when there's not even agreement as to what it is. Science is elegant! Psychologists need to think harder, waaaay harder! Please do not compare psychology to Physics. It's not only the fact that it's complex, they're just doing nothing about it! I haven't looked into Relational Frame Theory. Psychology is a field that makes huge claims, it should be taken seriously, the holistic study of the mind is a big deal! Psychologists in general really need to look back at what they're doing and realize that science is not only about implementing the scientific method. True science should explain a large set of observations, with tremendous accuracy, with a good theory. But at some point in time psychologists have stopped thinking that way, and have settled with coming up with just so many little, insignficant theories that sometimes only account for one observation, "degenerative theories", theories that account for results they predicted beforehand. They all do this, the neuropsychologist less so, I'd say, the social psychologist does it the most. There have been attempts at coming up with a sort of unifying theory in social psychology but they're as ridiculous as psychoanalysis. And yes, in personality they still talk about Freud!
I'm just hoping for a paradigm shift, psychologists questioning and redefining things. Not building a field based on observations that have never been proven to be correct (in some instances). Psychology may be scientific in some of the methods it implements, but it very often promotes pseudoscientific thinking. I'm an undergrad and I love the idea of studying the biological underpinnings of cognition (difficult) or behaviour (simpler). It's not about Dualism or anything like that, it's a much more important question and I hope I am getting my message across, because I haven't slept for two nights... and I'm on my 4th red bull (an neurotic introvert pumped full of caffeine engaging in pseudoextroversion)! So I understand if you can't quite make out what I'm saying (by tomorrow I might not either). Cognitive neruoscience (neuopsychology) is a very exciting field which I hope to get into some day. I just hate psychologists!

I have a Behavioural Neuroscience midterm coming up and it's 2 AM, and I just can't study. I think I'll have a word with my Animal Theory prof tomorrow... A psychologist in need of therapy. :P

 

[LightbulbSun]

I'm certainly not an expert in psychology so correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by what my stepmother tells me (she's a therapist) it seems like that area of psychology is becoming way too new ageish. Half of what she says doesn't seem to be backed up by any rigorus standards that I see in the other sciences. I mean if these psychology magazines are going to post articles about new theories then they need to be more skeptical of their own claims until they can confidently verify it.

 

[flyzeggs]

I'm certainly not an expert in psychology so correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by what my stepmother tells me (she's a therapist) it seems like that area of psychology is becoming way too new ageish. Half of what she says doesn't seem to be backed up by any rigorus standards that I see in the other sciences. I mean if these psychology magazines are going to post articles about new theories then they need to be more skeptical of their own claims until they can confidently verify it.

That's very true of clinical/social/personality psychology which has found its way in pop culture. This kind of psychology makes good business, but bad science! But to be fair it's not at all representative of the entire field.

 

[Math Is Hard]

All disciplines have their share of crackpots.

 

[Kemosabe]

I remember someone telling me that they heard a physicist once say that psychology was a pseudo-science, but I don't remember who exactly it was that said this. Anyways, I was wondering if there's a consensus out there that supports this notion of psychology being a pseudo-science, and if so, why?

You're thinking of Karl Popper's comments on psychoanalysis.