User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    A field of interest becomes a science once it attempts to study nature and make falsifiable claims. Psychology, for the most part, is indeed a science, as it makes claims about the mind and brain and performs studies (usually behavioral) that are falsifiable in some way.

    Psychologist says "I believe that short-term memory is decreased in people who have experienced a recent death in the immediate family" and does memory tests on people who have experienced a recent (a quantified term) death in the immediate (another quantified term) family accordingly, to see if the hypothesis is correct. Once a correlation is made, reasons are hypothesized, and more tests are done. The claim is completely falsifiable though; if it weren't true, there would be no correlation observed in the studies done.

    Freudian psychology, on the other hand, is one realm of psychology that is just total garbage. He set the grounds for an interesting theory with the whole subconscious thing, but the field as a whole is pretty non-falsifiable because you can't really find evidence that proves or disproves that we are all just run by our primitive urges. You can attribute any and every action to "primitive urges", but you can't really prove either way if these urges are the actual causes, making it non-falsifiable and ultimately just an interesting belief.

    On a side note, typology is the same way, making it a pseudoscience as well.

  2. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    teslashock, yes, this is exactly what Popper said, but nice way of saying it.
    But would psychology be a science if we couldn't really predict anything but only give educated guesses by it?

  3. #13
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nisho View Post
    teslashock, yes, this is exactly what Popper said, but nice way of saying it.
    Thanks. I actually read a good bit of Popper back in the day. Interesting man with interesting notions. I'd suggest his readings for anybody who's interested in being a scientist (or is one, for that matter).

    But would psychology be a science if we couldn't really predict anything but only give educated guesses by it?
    Well, anyone who has practiced a substantial amount of science realizes that no matter how much we know, we're still just making educated guesses. The more data we have, the more educated our guesses are, but there's really no way to accurately predict everything. We find broken rules every day.

    I think that psychology is based off of a lot of hypotheses and attempts at verifying/nullifying these hypotheses still (moreso than many other fields that really can find causative reasons as to why things happen the way they do), and oftentimes we can't really predict the outcome. However, from psychological studies that have been done, we do have a good grasp on the behavioral tendencies of different subsets of people (namely the mentally ill), and psychology combined with neuroscience has also helped us to understand how different parts of the brain function.

    It's one of the more "subjective" sciences, if you will, and I definitely agree that it has the potential to become pseudoscience if psychologists aren't careful (read: Freud), but overall I do still believe that psychology is bringing us quality information about an aspect of nature, the human mind.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,633

    Default

    The thing about all of Freud's theories about the unconscious, precoscious and conscious (I dont think he spoke of the subconscious, that's a revision of his theory based upon the idea that you can not be truly unconscious of something because that's not to know it at all) is they are based on a lot of prior research and theory and his own observations.

    A lot of Freudian theory is, as are other similar theories like Rorschack (spelling) tests and free association, based upon observations and a lot of science is based upon that very thing. The conceptualisations within Freud's theories, ie tripartite consciousness, ego, superego, Id are all are almost like literary tools and eventually his theories could become to more research and evidence based psyhotherapy what alchemy is to chemistry or astrology to astronomy but that doesnt make it bunk.

    Jung's greatest contribution to psychoanalysis wasnt this or that concept or theory, although a great many of them were good, but his insistence upon a kind of archeology of earlier theory and conceptualisations with the insights of the day as a filter.

  5. #15
    Branded with Satan murkrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Psych isn't a branch of philosophy, it's a branch of statistics.
    wails from the crypt.

  6. #16
    Senior Member milkyway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    ?
    Socionics
    ?
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Psychology is measured Philosophy

  7. #17
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murkrow View Post
    Psych isn't a branch of philosophy, it's a branch of statistics.
    How do you figure?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #18
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Perhaps this is wrong...

    but it seems much of jungian typology and even philosophy is based upon internalized subjective thoughts/feelings/observations that are then built into models or systems used to explain external observations of behavior and even motives.

    Psychology seems to work backwards, observing behavior and establishing metrics-while seemingly dismissing some amount of the subjective/individual internal observations of the individual in question.

    both seem flawed? To dismiss the metrics or to dismiss the subjective observations will both lead to error.

    With psyhcology, by assuming you are studying a homogeneous population and looking at large sample numbers for a specific metric, you introduce the same potential error as the FDA clinical trials of some drugs which showed they only work in select genetic populations.

    just my 2 cents though.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    Perhaps this is wrong...

    but it seems much of jungian typology and even philosophy is based upon internalized subjective thoughts/feelings/observations that are then built into models or systems used to explain external observations of behavior and even motives.

    Psychology seems to work backwards, observing behavior and establishing metrics-while seemingly dismissing some amount of the subjective/individual internal observations of the individual in question.

    both seem flawed? To dismiss the metrics or to dismiss the subjective observations will both lead to error.

    With psyhcology, by assuming you are studying a homogeneous population and looking at large sample numbers for a specific metric, you introduce the same potential error as the FDA clinical trials of some drugs which showed they only work in select genetic populations.

    just my 2 cents though.
    I suppose it is a case of how far it is possible to generalise then.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Gerbah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    433

    Default

    I think as long as it's remembered that psychological models and systems are theories they are useful for mapping out certain common patterns in thinking and behaviour. You can't account totally for the unique and subjective, but a theory can point you the right way in trying to understand a unique individual.

Similar Threads

  1. What do you think the purpose of philosophy or spirituality is?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-19-2015, 10:17 PM
  2. [MBTItm] How Does One Deal With Heartbreak and Is Psychological Pain Necessarily Part Of It?
    By Winds of Thor in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 09:43 AM
  3. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  4. What is the longest period of time you've been unemployed?
    By The Ü™ in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-28-2008, 08:18 PM
  5. E is in the I of the observer.
    By samIam in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-04-2007, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO