Is psychology science?

[bug]

Spawned by an interesting conversation...

I have a psychology textbook that takes theories of personality and evaluates them on criteria like, "Is this falsifiable?" and, "Can it generate research?" The conclusion in the book is usually an elegantly phrased "kinda-but-not-really" for most of the greats' ideas (Freud, Jung, Adler, Erikson, ect.) So... should psychology actually be classified as a science, or is it more of a, say, humanities subject?

[Greendruid]

The observations of psychology are often not empirical, and are, thus, not science. Especially when we get into personality disorders and mental illnesses - these are so culturally influenced. However, experimental psychology often does have empirical observations and laboratory settings that isolate factors. These seem exactly like science to me. It's always been considered a social science in my books but at my university it's in the school of Science and Technology. :shrug:

[Donkey]

It is certainly the most scientific of the social sciences.

[Michael]

Psychology is (to my knowledge) a member of the Social Sciences - meaning it is not one of "the sciences".

Some elements of it may follow the scientific method, but some elements do not (like most of the other social sciences: economics, political science, anthropology, sociology, religious studies, women's studies, etc.)

Definitely not a "humanities" subject at all since it isn't studied for the sake of being human. It is a social science because there is a pretense towards a scientific approach.

[Donkey]

I would say that since the days of Freud and friends, however, it has moved greatly in the scientific direction. Less about how the "mind" works, and more about how the brain works.

[Americano]

The observations of psychology are often not empirical, and are, thus, not science. Especially when we get into personality disorders and mental illnesses - these are so culturally influenced. However, experimental psychology often does have empirical observations and laboratory settings that isolate factors. These seem exactly like science to me. It's always been considered a social science in my books but at my university it's in the school of Science and Technology. :shrug:

Could it be that contemporary buzz words classification which facilitates more and easier to obtain funding than a plain jane social sciences label?

[Greendruid]

Could it be that contemporary buzz words classification which facilitates more and easier to obtain funding than a plain jane social sciences label?

Oh, definitely. I have colleagues who are physical anthropologists in science departments because of the large amount of empirical evidence that their data are comprised of. Why entire faculties of psychologists decide to go this direction though is puzzling. Puzzling that it would be done and puzzling that it would be allowed. Then again, bureaucratic administrators understand so little about each discipline anyway, it's probably pretty simple to pull the wool over their eyes or at least to stretch it enough to make the switch seem reasonable.

[Americano]

Oh, definitely. I have colleagues who are physical anthropologists in science departments because of the large amount of empirical evidence that their data are comprised of. Why entire faculties of psychologists decide to go this direction though is puzzling. Puzzling that it would be done and puzzling that it would be allowed. Then again, bureaucratic administrators understand so little about each discipline anyway, it's probably pretty simple to pull the wool over their eyes or at least to stretch it enough to make the switch seem reasonable.

It's probably buried so far down in the science and technology department budget that it receives funding allocation increases right along with the more popular hard sciences and technology with no dissension. Universities are far more political than the private sector and any department head always welcomes the additional power a larger budget provides to use that power in allocating funding.

[evanescence]

Many children are labeled early in life with "disorders" so that their schools can receive extra funding. In addition, Big Pharma gets more customers hooked on their drugs for decades to come. It's about money, power, and manipulation..pretty much like everything else is.

[Daktoria]

As if people didn't already know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3im2RI2Cyqc&feature=related

WWWWWWhhhhhhhyyyyyyy doesn't utub embedding workkkkkkkkkkkkkk????????????????

[Americano]

As if people didn't already know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3im2RI2Cyqc&feature=related

WWWWWWhhhhhhhyyyyyyy doesn't utub embedding workkkkkkkkkkkkkk????????????????

I'm glad it doesn't. They never offer a text alternative.

[Michael]

WWWWWWhhhhhhhyyyyyyy doesn't utub embedding workkkkkkkkkkkkkk????????????????
Because I have no desire to pay for the kind of bandwidth needed to host videos on my server. I don't think any website can do that without a robust advertising revenue stream.

A link to YouTube works just fine. That uses their bandwidth, not mine. :D

[evanescence]

Because I have no desire to pay for the kind of bandwidth needed to host videos on my server. I don't think any website can do that without a robust advertising revenue stream.

A link to YouTube works just fine. That uses their bandwidth, not mine. :D

Although embedding is a great feature, the advertisements are annoying as hell. There's no something for nothing.. ;)

[Donkey]

Youtube embeds are annoying, they slow down the loading and scrolling of a machine if you're not running high processing power.

[Americano]

Youtube embeds are annoying, they slow down the loading and scrolling of a machine if you're not running high processing power.

I dislike information video embeds because they make posters too lazy to include any text on the subject. I dislike embedded music videos (and Youtube) because the sound quality, embedded or linked, is crap.

Psychologically, consumer marketing has always been somewhat of a science and Youtube does provide (almost) the all important instant gratification factor.