How does the scientist proceed? — Gregory

The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate Reviewing the ways in which psychology is and is not a science. For clarity of communication, it is often a good idea to start with some basic definitions, so let’s start with some generally agreed upon definitions of science from reputable organizations. — Psychology today

Unfortunately, the author proceeds by using a definition that fails to mention the falsificationist nature of science. So, as far as I am concerned, the remainder of his article is not even worth reading.

Is psychology a “real” science? Does it really matter? Fellow Scientific American blogger Melanie Tannenbaum is flustered by allegations that psychology is not a science and I can see where she is coming from. Berezow's definition of science is not off the mark, but it's also incomplete and too narrow. — Scientific American on psychology as science

Well, I disagree with his "too narrow" remark. The definition of the term science cannot be narrow enough. If we want to properly distinguish between science and snake-oil alchemy, we must use a definition that excludes as many disciplines as possible without excluding the ones that are truly falsificationist. So, I think the remainder of the article simply uses the wrong premises again.

Alternatives to the Scientific Approach. However, some psychologists’ argue that psychology should not be a science. There are alternatives to empiricism, such as rational research, argument and belief. The humanistic approach (another alternative) values private, subjective conscious experience and argues for the rejection of science. Despite having a scientific methodology worked out (we think), there are further problems and arguments which throw doubt onto psychology ever really being a science. — simplypsychology.org on whether psychology is a science

In my opinion, this article uses a correct definition for the term science and also for the practice of psychology. He concludes that psychology is not necessarily a science but that this is in no way a damaging conclusion.

How does the scientist proceed? — Gregory

The study of the Psyche was considered to be a branch of philosophy (metaphysics) until the mid-20th century. B. F. Skinner attempted to make a pragmatic science of psychology by observing overt behavior, instead of occult thoughts & feelings. He discovered some practical applications of behavior modification, such as Operant Conditioning (useful in brainwashing). In the 21st century, brain scanning devices have extended the reach of Behaviorism into the physical operations of the brain --- mapping Bio-Chemistry, but not Psycho-Meaning. Since the Psyche is not a physical machine though, Neuro-scientists are still groping around like blind men and the elephant.

Unfortunately, the thoughts & motives behind the personal behavior remain opaque to our pragmatic probing. Today, Information Theory offers some insights to the formal processing of ideas. But the personal experiences of other people will always remain beyond the reach of empirical Science --- unless you accept the propaganda of Psychics. So, I guess that "hard" scientists will continue to proceed with observing physical analogs of Mind, while "soft" philosophers will persist in penetrating the Psyche with their own impenetrable imagination. :nerd:

Nice!

It's really hard to proceed in psychology when all you can do is measure brain waves and connect them to what the person is saying. All the various interpretations, like statistics what is likely for a group of humans to act, is sociology, with more tools. Yet avoiding all philosophical interpretation is vital and at the same time really hard. Donald Hoffman wants to map consciousness, but faces the problem of how to find out the relation between corporeal expression and specific experiences. Do I see your red? We have different eyes, but they are similar. We are drown back into philosophy

You can quantify anything. Because the human brain is made of particles that are subject to the laws of physics, perhaps in the future our actions will be more predictable than they are now.

But I don't think that was the exact purpose of your OP. That specific test that is in your OP is a common sort of thing as you implied. If you are implying this sort of test is very often done sloppy and unprofessional to some degree, I agree with that. Modern Psychology as opposed to tommorow's Psychology is very wanting.

I would guess they would record some numbers with the test on a spread sheet, make some uneducated educated guesses, publish it in a journal and then it would be posted on yahoo as some sort of fact. In some cases these tests do probably contain truth.

Tyra Banks said on her show once that older people can experience orgasms that last literally however long they want. "It get's better?" she said. Well one question is whether old people generally are honestly open about what really happens in their sex lives.I don't know if it's possible to have an objective psychology when there are so many philosophical variants of what can be questioned

If all psychological research were conducted in the lax manner you propose, then no, it would not be science!

Firstly, we should beware of pop-phi concepts of what science is. Prediction and falsifiability are important concepts in general, but consider Linnaus' work on taxonomy: it is not clear that it had either, yet its importance for setting the framework for Darwin cannot be over-emphasized. 'All' Linnaus did was to look at diversity without trying to force it into a preconceived grand scheme, as many of his predecessors tried to do.

Secondly, we should not assume that a science of psychology must be a neurological one. If psychology is as successful in characterizing the mental as Linnaus was with respect to biology, or Brahe was with respect to astronomy, it is already a science.

With respect to the question of whether people are being honest, we should pay attention to what they do, as well as what they say. It is much harder to behave consistently with a lie than it is to say it.

How can you NOT have a science of the mind? Minds exist, yes? Then there should be theories about how they work. We call that "psychology".

Correlations between MRI, fMRI, or other brain scans and mental states (subjective reports) are accepted in the scientific community. Never could figure this out. If the empirical method were to apply, there would be no accepting of subjective reports and nothing could be said about communication between scans and mental states...you'd be left with the scan on one hand and the mental state on the other...never kissing. Thoughts and inner states aren't subject to science, which is why it should ignore them and consider them anecdotal and beyond the study of neuroscience. Anywhere there's an awesome technology, it seems to blind all coherence of rationale with its dazzling light; and neuroscientists tend to forget the scientific method when correlating subjective reports with brain scans. From the perspective of a proper coherently anal (and dogmatic, one-sided) scientific method...an MRI shows the brain lighting up in certain areas and that's where it ends b/c that's where the "objective" evidence ends... Basically, those who study the mind through brain scans have been violating the empirical method while they flourish with their indulgence in beloved technology. The scans are really nothing more than a map of the territory, at best; for some reason, neuroscientists have gone on to mistake the scans for the territory.

Psychology is more philosophy than science. William James was the first psychologist, before that he was a philosopher; there wasn't advanced technology in his day. It would be important to note that the inability of science to get at the mind by no means means there isn't a mind. Psychology, especially the combo of psychoanalysis with psychedelics (mind manifesting chemicals), is probably the best approach we have to studying the nonphysical domain of mind, it doesn't matter if its scientific or not. Filtering all of existence through empirical method severely deranges understanding of the abstract picture entire. There's simply no need to apply the filter of science to the part of existence which is nonphysical. In my view all is energy (E=mc2), and energy is more like mind than matter. If matter truly existed, my imagination can't conceive of it as changing...the fields of energy we know are defined by their protean nature.

Psychology is in need of some stimulus before it is classed as a science because we're not doing it properly. It's your job.

You are not the man behind the mouth. I suppose I'm being egotistical here but I have better judgement than most.

I don't want statistics show I want a doctor who creates new statistics.

However, some might be lying. — Gregory

I think the direct correlation or comparison there would be through the use of a Polygraph. :gasp:

Otherwise, empirical methods of psychology can certainly overlap into cognitive science.