What is your view of psychology as a science?

[Kyriakos]

I think that it is a real science, although its subject is perhaps more vast than that of other sciences, at least arguably since it deals with the human mind and not just one ability of it.
It can be very usefull, although it seems that yet it is not as developed as it will be in the future. However there exist many theories which are backed by experiments (patiets getting better after they have been helped through trauma).
It is not yet common knowledge. Most people probably have heard of some parts of it, like the Oedipus complex, but not much more possibly. This may change too in the future.
Finally, it is advancing along side harder science, such as the medical study of the mind, and particularly its material aspects.

So in general my view of it, in principle, is very positive. What is yours?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Ambivalence. Interesting insights, but the science is a bit soft in places. I prefer neuroscience, personally.

 

[Synobun]

The logic behind psychology is powerful.
I enjoy it very much. Understanding the behaviour of your fellow incebiles is quite... shall I say, useful?

But that may be because I'm hoping to get a Masters in Psychology in the future

 

[Babbler]

It's more scientific than say, history, phrenology or economics (in order of respectability).

 

[ArneHD]

Depends on the school of thought being used: Behaviourism, biological psychology and cognitive psychology (the ones I know of) are all fairly hard subjects. Freudian and neo-Freudian interpretations are obviously less hard than the others.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The extremely limted areas of psychology which actually use the scientific method, instead of sheer guesswork and speculation, to support their hypotheses? Yes.

The rest? No.

Can this eventually change once we know enough to be able to study a subject as complex as the human mind in a scientific manner? Quite possibly.

 

[Kyriakos]

Depends on the school of thought being used: Behaviourism, biological psychology and cognitive psychology (the ones I know of) are all fairly hard subjects. Freudian and neo-Freudian interpretations are obviously less hard than the others.

I was thinking mostly of Melanie Klein. I have read her book about children's psychoanalysis, and found a lot of interesting points there. Apart from that i have read some parts of various books by Freud.

 

[Ecofarm]

It is a SOFT (social) science.

Of the soft ones, it is one of the MOST squishy.


Greats like Freud, who only decades ago were worshiped, are today dismissed as frauds.

 

[Kyriakos]

Although im sure that in 100 years from now many theories in psychology will have been developed to the point where older ones would have died away or seem primitive, some insights appear to have value, even as the tip of the iceberg of what they refer at. For example the discovery of the fact that all small children see their mother, when she is angry, as an unbelievably malevolent being, a demon, is very important, since it serves as a point where horror is focused in the life of a child
Also, from what cases i have read of children, in the pre-school era the Oedipus complex is very alive and observable, and later on can become again active, without there being a consciosuness of it being there. Psychology again is usefull in this discovery

 

[El_Machinae]

More & more of psychology is intersecting with neuroscience. In these areas, it's become some of the strongest science we've ever seen. There is a LOT to know about the mind, it's amazingly complicated, so don't expect a complete 'theory of mind' any time soon, obviously.

Some components of psychology are still inaccessible to neuroscience. Of these, I think that cognitive psychology has really added a lot to our knowledge of the mind. Most peoples' conception of psychology is a couple of decades old, and most of the things that people disparage are some decade-old misconception of the field.

 

[sophie]

I think at present psychology is a fairly useful science, and will only improve with time. The human mind is one of the most complex organs on the planet, and I fully support efforts to figure out how it works.

 

[Ecofarm]

Yes, well, don't read Freud. He has been fully discredited.

 

[moscaverde]

Psychology have a big potential to be very scientific (like behaviorism).
Unfortunately its study includes a bunch of unscientific crap (see Freudisms).

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, well, don't read Freud. He has been fully discredited.

You say that like disproving Victorian scientific theories means something. All sciences have thoroughly moved on past what they had back then, Freud was still leagues ahead of what most of the medical field was thinking at the time.

 

[Ecofarm]

There is plenty of science from Victorian times and before that stands today. Little of it has been thoroughly discredited.

Sigismund Schlomo Freud (May 6, 1856 – September 23, 1939)

It did not take even 100 years to expose him for the quack he was.

ps. I would hardly call the early 1900s "victorian".

The Victorian era of the United Kingdom was the period of Queen Victoria's reign from June 1837 until her death on the 22nd of January 1901.

 

[Kyriakos]

Although i gather that Freud's theory of sexuality, and his other collected theories are now old and psychology has developed past them, some of his seperate axioms still stand.
For example no one seems to doubt that dreams are a manifestation of either a hope or a fear, and that was argued by Freud in his book on Dreams.

 

[Ecofarm]

Freud was not the first person to suggest dreams were fears or hopes. That's not "his" work.

I think it is FAR more important to realize the antagonists in dreams are ourselves and the imperfections we want to fix.

 

[Kerozine]

Doesn't elaborate very much as to why something is, but then again I've only taken one introductory psych. course as a complementary. A bit fluffy.

 

[Ayatollah So]

To quote my favorite philosopher, "It'll never work ... but it's certainly worth a try!"

Psychology is very difficult to treat both comprehensively and scientifically at the same time, but it's not like ignore-it-and-hope-it-goes-away is an option.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There is plenty of science from Victorian times and before that stands today.

Theres plenty of Freud that stands today.

Little of it has been thoroughly discredited.

I would remind you that at his time, astrophysicists thought space was full of Aether, I think that's been discredited. All disease was thought to be caused by Bacteria. I could go on.

ps. I would hardly call the early 1900s "victorian".

I would hardly call Freud limited to the early 1900s.