I do not mean that as any disrespect. Consequently, psychology's clients are utterly subject to the whim of clinical psychologists, who don't really care whether what they are doing has been tested scientifically. How mystic psychology seems has nothing to do with whether or not it is a science. It would seem there is cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical astronomy, and observational astronomy. Should this not be the case, it would make for interesting debate with evolutationary psychologists about how my knowledge of the oedipal conflict came to be innate! This validation process relies on well-established biological theories.
That is the present status of clinical psychology. Yet we call what was doing science, and we call what was doing science. Avoid mood-altering drugs — Do not take other non-prescribed medication or drugs. The Methods though are limited only by our imagination. Over the years I have almost totally lost interest in the question.
It is true that psychology has its fair share of pseudo science, I mean the entire diagnostic manual of mental disorders has continued to resist integration with research findings see. Look at each major change in psychological practice starting with Freud, moving through Bruno Bettelheim falsely blaming mothers for their children's autism, to the present, and you will see a history of whimsy followed by cocktail chatter, instead of theory followed by experiment. I gave the example of Freud because he is very famous and some still believe the stupid ideas he developed. There are three problems with this class of question. Social sciences are not falsifiable see the 7th characteristic of science. It could be disproved at any moment.
His standing in the world of science mattered not at all. But since then, particularly in Western democracies, we've adopted the twisted idea that everyone can and should go to college. About 50% of research in social psychology meets this standard. As individuals they are really unpredictable, in groups, somewhat better and in large groups pretty good, but still not 100% predictable. Today there are still no diangostic tests for Mental illness, over 30 years later. How does one measure happiness? That's true, and it represents an ethical limitation that cannot be circumvented, no matter the potential reward.
A scientific theory lays explanatory claim on a part of reality. And by so doing, the teacher reveals her lack of understanding of how ideas and theories are shaped in the realm of science. Science assumes that there are laws of human behavior that apply to each person. But, it simply does not measure up to the scientific method, the most powerful pathway to secular knowledge that humanity has ever invented. Berezow's definition of science is not off the mark, but it's also incomplete and too narrow. I hope you can understand that Psychology is a varied and fascinating discipline, and most definitely scientific. No such empirical measurements have ever been made.
This shouldn't be taken as a blanket condemnation of all clinical psychologists — to paraphrase a Henry Kissinger remark about politicians, 90% of clinical psychologists give the other 10% a bad name. It may well make history scientifically, or not. As a beautiful example of the power of logic and deduction, mathematical proofs may represent the highest form of knowledge attainable by man. I was just thinking the same thing. There are many folks who do legitimate psychology research who are not doing science. Defense mechanisms and cognitive distortions are very predictable and work just about the same way in all human beings. The key features of the experiment are control over variables independent, dependent and extraneous , careful objective measurement and establishing cause and effect relationships.
Of course, whether a psychologists uses subjective self-reports or biological measures does not make them any more of a scientist. Foucault challenges the notion that knowledge is discovered, he argues that it is produced through the language and practice that are involved in making it meaningful. Science is not the final word in knowledge or credibility, and nor should we accept it as such. Immanuel Kant argued that rational mental processes must be activated by mental content derived from experience; therefore, the study of mind must be confined to questions appropriate to an empirical psychology. Fields cannot become scientific by extension unless they share theoretical and evidentiary links with a scientific field.
Full understanding, prediction and control in psychology is probably unobtainable due to the huge complexity of environmental, mental and biological influences upon even the simplest behavior i. If Psychology is a science, why, when one graduates does the degree read Bachelor of Arts? The amount of how many exceptions there seem to be is going to determine the level of skepticism. Slife and Williams 1995 have tried to answer these two questions: 1 We need to try at least to strive for scientific methods because we need a rigorous discipline. At some point you will understand that science relies on evidence, not belief. But logic is well, logical, so there is not really anything to disagree with.
It has helped us understand questions like:? The self-reporting problem might be solved by creating a control group, but this is almost never done for some practical and basic ethical reasons. Also, a theory construction is important. Familiar with delusions of grandeur are we? The long-term effectiveness of aversion therapy is questionable. I think, if the media writes about psychological findings, that they should only write about meta-analyses, or something like that, which discusses aggragated findings, and nuanced conclusions. You have been misled by a miseducated teacher.
Many of the subject matters that are studied in psychology and other social sciences have more shades of grey - as it is hard to claim an absolute truth. That's how science deals with nonsense. Let's say a psychologist wants to prove that his method is efficacious in preventing teenage suicide. No tests have been conducted by astrologers that could show their claims are wrong. Until they are, the claims are hypotheses, not theories. So perhaps that is why the number of disorders balloons up so much; bad spelling isn't a disorder, but being completely unable to learn how to write does at least require some kind of special attention. It is true that psychology has its fair share of pseudo science, I mean the entire diagnostic manual of mental disorders has continued to resist integration with research findings see here.