Brother Wood will, like as not, doubt the worth of psychology (and sociology as well, most likely) no matter how solid your defense. People who think psychology should be a hard science like physics or chemistry need their heads examined, as well as their lives. — Bitter Crank

Yes, it is blind prejudice. On thing I've noticed - when people criticize the softness of psychology, I point out that what was called cognitive psychology has grown to include a very hard branch called "cognitive science." They then claim that cognitive science isn't psychology. So, soft psychology isn't science, we harden it up, and then it's not psychology any more. So, clearly it has nothing to do with the hardness of the science. It has to do with the intrusion of touchy-feely girly-man stuff into the bastion of maleness.

Despite all that, there are many (not sure its more than a billion) people who seem to be healthy, well grounded, clear headed, honest, open, and cooperative. They, of course, do not end up on the psychotherapeutic couch. Psychology would probably learn more if it spent more time analyzing all the happy people who are alike, and less on the unhappy people who are all different and totally screwed up. — Bitter Crank

Long, long ago, in that golden age when you and I were what is now known as "young," I was a psych major. I took abnormal psych, social psych, be-mean-to-rats psych, psych testing. I found them all pretty unsatisfying. Then, in my sophomore year, I took cognitive psychology followed by the psychology of language. Those focused on exactly the people you describe - the more-or-less happy, functional people in the world. Even unhappy, less functional people still have minds that work pretty well most of the time. In those classes, this math and science guy found what he was looking for.

I thought an engineer might know better. In all of these "hard" science is done, with close observation and various kinds of laboratory analysis. How, for example, do we know that what is now Australia long ago was a short walk from Spokane, WA? Not by casual speculation or idle observation, but by chemical analysis of bits of sand from the two regions. Turns out to be the same sand! Paleontology? How about carbon and other ways of dating. Evolutionary biology? By the presence and juxtaposition of similarities and differences in animals separated by millennia. Ecology? how about chemistry. Astronomy? Mathematics, physics, and close and careful observation. Oceanography? Chemistry and physics. — tim wood

This is really pitiful.

Don't know what that is. I observe. Do I observe scientifically? What would that be? And how, exactly, scientific? And what then? I theorize. Is that scientific? And so forth. — tim wood

You're responding to a post I made to Yohan. Did you read my previous post to you where I discussed that?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/568425

I didn't see any response from you on that. I'll take one more shot at this and then I'm done.

• You said "science is about replicable results from experiments."
  
  
• I asked "Do you consider geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, ecology, astronomy, and oceanography to be sciences?"
  
  
• You responded "Yep."
  
  
• I noted that the sciences listed are observational sciences, i.e. they are primarily descriptive and do not usually provide "replicable results from experiments."

There is a contradiction here.

As I said, I'm done with this discussion for now. I've laid out my definitions and arguments and you've waved your arms and repeated your claims without addressing what I've written.

So psychology is a pseudo-science, soft science, non-science? — Yohan

Psychology is science, observational science.

This is starting to sound like an anti-science person who says evolution is "just a theory" — Yohan

Although you are overstating the case, there is some truth in what you've written.

Yep. But what of it? The question is to psychology. — tim wood

You wrote previously.

My view, in brief from above, is that science is about replicable results from experiments. — tim wood

The sciences I listed do not generally have "replicable results from experiments" any more than psychology does. These are called "observational sciences." Here is some text from an article in American Scientist. I don't offer this as proof, but rather as a description of what I'm talking about.



I think we both agree that there is some work in psychology which matches the description of experimental science, but much doesn't.

My view, in brief from above, is that science is about replicable results from experiments. — tim wood

Do you consider geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, ecology, astronomy, and oceanography to be sciences?

I don't know what OECD or ECP mean.

Clinical psychologists will be interested in that. I wonder what their degrees say. — tim wood

Now we're doodling around with language. It doesn't matter what the diploma says. It matters what people actually do. To be fair, I think the confusion you and I are having is something psychologists of all kinds are not very aware of. Maybe that's Freud's fault.

Nor this a carpenter, but what, or among the things that, carpenters do. — tim wood

Now you've just gone out and ruined my brilliant metaphor or aphorism or whatever it is.

You said you'd like to demonstrate (not your word) that psychology is a science. What sort of a start might you make? Having your plane shot-up before it gets off the ground is better all-'round than it's being shot down after it gets up. But that's only if your start is no good. If instead it's good, then maybe we all learn. — tim wood

You're just itching for a scrap and you're impatient waiting for me to decide whether I want to get into it.

What a strange thing to say. Science is science. If something is indeed a science, then it should be science all the way down. — baker

Applied science is another phrase meaning "engineering." Engineering is in no way science.

Pick up any introductory book on the theme of scientific methodology, and you'll see the first chapters are devoted to errors in measurement and how to minimize them. — baker

Again, that's science. Engineering is not science. Hitting a nail with a hammer is not a hammer. Applied psychology is not psychology.

There is no left wing in the US. Just a bunch of effete liberals - all of whom are centre right - who confuse politeness and table manners for politics. — StreetlightX

Oh, SLX, you're just so cute. I want to pinch your cheek.

The issue is applied psychology, as it is applied by people in positions of power, whether they have a degree in psychology or not, and the legal power that these people have. — baker

The problems with applied psychology have nothing to do with whether or not psychology is a science. There are problems with applied physics that have the potential to destroy humanity, but that doesn't change physic's status as a science.

And at a more radical (reductio?) level, R. Scott Bakker refers to this as the (coming?) "semantic apocalypse" wherein we are eliminating with discursive reasoning (technoscience, FN's "will to knowledge") the very basis for our discursive reasoning – human meaning (e.g. intentionality, free will ... are just "user illusions") — 180 Proof

I haven't read the article yet, but I will. I worry less about metaphorical catastrophes than I do about real ones.

It's the sort of circularity a five year old could spot. — Isaac

@tim wood and I get along pretty well, philosophically, except when we don't. He has some pretty strong... opinions that always get me started - his antipathy towards religion and psychology are prime examples.

I'm always happy to get to use "antipathy" in a post. Antipathy, antipathy, antipathy.

Say it loud and there's music playing,
Say it soft and it's almost like praying

Sure, why not. — tim wood

I don't know if that would work or not. One thing I like about the universal basic income approach is it cuts out all the frim fram - just write a bunch of checks. Get rid of bureaucrats, complex formulas, multiple overlapping programs, red tape.

Sound about right? — tim wood

See my previous response.

How does an absolute truth differ from a plain ordinary truth? — Banno

I think an absolute truth is a proposition that is true in all possible circumstances, for all possible observers, in all possible times and locations, really, truly, we really really mean it.

Great, and when or where was that ever done scientifically? — tim wood

I've been trying to decide whether I should try to make a comprehensive case for psychology as a scientific discipline. I'd considered doing that in the past but never got around to it. That would be the only potentially effective way for me to respond to your skepticism, but it will take some effort. Let me think about whether I've got the energy to do it right now.

How much of this does it differ from other aspects of psychology? Seems interesting to point out that psychology or psychotherapy aren't that distinct from another since one can be more theory based, with the other much more hands on and active. — Shawn

I'm not sure if I understand the question. When I was a psych major many (many, many, many) years ago, the classes I liked the best were in cognitive psychology and the psychology of language and for the exact reasons we're discussing. They were the most "scientific" of the types of psychology. Even better, they dealt mainly with healthy human minds and healthy human behavior. In the intervening 50 years, cognitive psychology has expanded and been joined by cognitive science to provide a very powerful way of looking human cognitive function.

Although when I was in college in the 1970s I had thoughts of being a therapist, I was never satisfied by those classes in that aspect for the reason we are discussing. They had trouble separating out the facts of human behavior and the methods for intervening in human mental problems. I think that's where a lot of the criticism about psychology comes from.

That's actually funny to talk about, since that's by definition behaviorism. I don't think behaviorism is the same as psychology, as is cognitive science the same as the study of thinking. — Shawn

No. The definition of "behaviorism" is "The theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings"

It would be interesting to note, that what types do not involve this form of analysis? — Shawn

Much of psychotherapy these days uses drugs with or without talk therapy. Even the talk therapies vary in the amount of self-awareness involved. Some of them focus directly on problem behaviors and how to improve them directly without necessarily using self-awareness. I am not a psychotherapist, so I we've come to the end of my specific knowledge.

Psychology hasn’t had a Newton or Einstein yet, — khaled

There are those who would say that Freud was that person, including Freud. A lot of people would laugh at that. I think there's a case to be made though. Before Freud and some others at the beginning of the 20th century, it was widely believed that people acted for motives and by methods that are mostly conscious and self-conscious. Freud showed that people are not aware of much of what goes on in their minds. That's a profound idea and one that's at the bottom of any understanding of the human mind and human behavior.

Nothing about deontological or consequentialist ethical theories really incorporate the psyche into their analysis. The trolley dilemma neither does incorporate the analysis of the biases of the lever switcher into the conceptual landscape. — Shawn

And that's one of the reasons so much of the philosophy of ethics is baloney.

Yet, when a patient enters the office of a psychologist, they would sit there and recollect questions they have to the psychologist about their life. — Shawn

I've said this before - psychology is not psychotherapy. Psychology is the scientific study of behavior. But you're right, some, but not all, forms of psychotherapy do involve self-examination.

Well then I should put in a call to Edinburgh University immediately, they'll be dismayed to learn of the imposters they have as the emeritus professor of their department of psychology. — Isaac

I think Tim has fallen victim to the No True Scottish Psychologist fallacy.

Does anyone have any absolute, objective understanding of reality? — Cidat

Not to be too cute, but if I refute the existence of an absolute, objective reality, does that mean my understanding is absolute and objective?

It makes sense to do this right? — TiredThinker

There are two issues. First - I believe that for a society to be good, everyone, must have ready access to decent working conditions, a decent place to live, nutritious food, clothing, education, and health care. I also believe that our society should work to become a good one.

Second - What is the best method to achieve this goal? Does the minimum wage help do it? I'm not sure, but I am sure it's not enough by itself.

Thanks..

Up until the nineteen hundreds there was no clear profession for philosophers to fundamentally speak of what Plato and Socrates called the soul or psyche. — Shawn

The soul was generally the purview of religion. It certainly wasn't ignored. Ethics and morals are heavily influenced by psychological factors, and they weren't ignored either.

Nowadays we know very well, that the study of the human psyche is done through psychology. It is a profession that isn't exact or as scientific as other professions, but, is still important to the discovery of one's self. — Shawn

Psychology is a science as much as any other. No, it's not as exact as physics, but neither are geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, or archeology. There are certainly things to criticize about some psychology, but much is important and fascinating. There is also lots of harder science that has legitimacy problems, e.g. scientific studies run by pharmaceutical companies are heavily skewed toward finding that drugs being tested are safe and effective. It's also important that you separate psychology from psychotherapy. They're not the same thing, although they are related.

I ask the reader whether they think psychology is an important field or whether any of the above makes sense to assert about the importance that philosophers purported was the examination of one's life? — Shawn

Psychology is not "examining one's life." It is the study of (mostly) human behavior.

Rephrase the opposition in such a way that you can not successfully argue against it. — Cheshire

So, I rephrase your argument as a way of putting myself in your shoes?

The idea is challenging each other to steel man each other's position. — Yohan

I have no idea what "steel man" means in this context.

I like things "goofy or hard to explain" — TheMadFool

As we say here in Massachusetts, "So don't I," which, for some reason means the same as "So do I."

It retrospect at the intended meaning of your statement perhaps I misinterpreted what you had written, as I had interpreted the 'you're really young' as an added phrase and not as a premise, and I am going to go back and re-discover my new position on your comment. — Bradaction

To be fair, I should have said it differently.

I'll put in another plug for this "60 Minutes" story about how moral judgement develops in very young children. It has a lot to say about your question. Thirteen minutes long. I've watched it three or four times and it amazes me every time. There are some ads.

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/msGw1iFHLOXlVdeZtfO9KBW9Kffq3VUl/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

This leads me to make a troubling discovery, and that discovery is the overuse of ideals such as, ‘You’re too young to understand,’ or ‘You’re too young to hold an opinion on this matter’. This logic is fundamentally flawed, it is no worse than saying that someone is wrong because of their race, marital status, sex etc. — Bradaction

As one of the people who made this kind of statement to you, I'll respond. To be clear, I gave specific reasons for my disagreements with you about gender orientation which did not include any reference to anything personal about you. It's true, I did make this statement:

You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective.

I'll stand behind this statement. The things you wrote in that discussion showed a lack of perspective. A lack of understanding of the history of the civil rights movement and a lack of understanding of the incredible changes that have taken place in the last 10 years. I'm certainly not an expert, but I did live through it. You seem to take all that for granted, which shows a lack of perspective, which I think is a result of your age.

82 - Hanover 73 and closing in fast. Is that my footsteps you hear? — Hanover

Another point. I think we should start over at zero so the old guys don't feel all superior.

You know TMF, not everything that seems goofy or hard to explain is a paradox.

I don't think society is collapsing, but I think we're entering a very dangerous time. Humanity more and more has learned to modify the very ground of our existence. It started with nuclear weapons. Soon we will have the ability to genetically modify and create life at will. Nanotechnologies will allow us to control and modify living things at the cellular level. Travel and commerce between different parts of the world will lead to more pandemics. Artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and related technologies the potential to cause significant disruption of civilization. There are people who believe that artificial intelligence will take over the world within the next 50 years.

I don't know what will happen. I won't be here, but I worry for my children.

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

For someone with gender dysphoria the mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity is a cause of distress for them, which coupled with the discrimination they often face makes for the way others think and talk about their gender a matter of significance for them. — Michael

I mean this as a serious question. Would a genderqueer person be diagnosed with gender dysphoria? It seems to me they wouldn't.

Maybe, run by the old folks home afterward and slap pudding out of the hands of the elderly. — Cheshire

Upvote for the image.

I voted to get rid of it, but it's not a big issue with me. However you decide will be fine.

As others have said, the emergency of this situation is limited enough that we can take our time, accept as much as we're comfortable with, and slow down with the condemnation. — Hanover

This is a really good point.

I'd give you an upvote, but you're at 69 and I'm unwilling to change that.

Gender Orientation and Sexual Orientation are different topics, — Bradaction

Whatever positive changes have taken place in the status of transgender and genderqueer people in recent years are completely and absolutely tied to the improvements in status that gay people have fought for for decades. For you not to know that proves my point.