Psychology ?

[Sayonara]

And yet it still has nothing to do with the thread.

[Void]

...

 

Certainly the more qualitative areas of research have to be considered an art. For example' date=' data collection there is usually by interview, and the skills and personality (and even apperance) of the interviewer will strongly influence the data you get. So, no two interviewers could hope to get exactly the same data from the same respondent. Interviewing is pretty much an art I'd say.

 

...

 

At this end of Psychology, there is grater scope for control, which means 'true experiments' (i.e. experiments designed to test for [i']causal[/i] relationships between the independent and dependent variables) can be conducted. At the softer end, there is no such scope for control, so experiments are pretty much out of the question.

 

 

I would respectfully disagree with these comments. It has been shown that even when using expreimental methods, one's expectations can effect the collection and results.

 

I would say you neglected to consider structured interview formats, that can be subjected to reliability tests.

 

Overall, I consider psychology a science. It does not posit "laws" but does give us theories or models, that at best, offer a probable outcome. Now, I am not a physics minded individual, but from what I know quantum physics can offer us no more than that as well?

[Flareon]

Taken from Dictionary.com:

 

 

psy·chol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-kl-j)

n. pl. psy·chol·o·gies

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity: the psychology of war.

3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point.

4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

psy·chol·o·gy (s-kl-j)

n.

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, a group, or an activity.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

 

Main Entry: psy·chol·o·gy

Pronunciation: -jE

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural -gies

1 : the science of mind and behavior

2 a : the mental or behavioral characteristics typical of an individual or group or a particular form of behavior <mob psychology> <the psychology of arson> b : the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity <color psychology> <the psychology of learning>

3 : a treatise on or a school, system, or branch of psychology

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

 

psychology

n : the science of mental life [syn: psychological science]

[Flareon]

What we must keep in mind about psychology is that it is a science still much in its infancy.

 

The most sophisticated people people once believed that the earth was flat, that the sun and moon and stars revolved around the earth, that their were only four elements (earth, air, water, fire), and in spontaneous generation, in phlogiston, that atoms were indivisible, etc...

 

Psychology IS a science. The reason that it hasn't advanced as it could have is due to ETHICS. Ethics prevents systematic experimentation on humans to be liberally carried out in the pursuit of knowledge. Imagine a physicist without calculus, or a biologist without a microscope. Psychologists must take indirect measurements to build a picture from imcomplete and hazy images of human behavior and mental processes. Like I said, give it a few more years, you'll see.

[YT2095]

For the love of Jebus, Dictionary.com is not a technical resource.[/size']

 

and it isn`t, although I agree with you to a greater or lesser extent, it DOES depend on your definition of ART also

[Flareon]

Am I missing something here, or have I said that it was?

 

Besides, Dictionary.com is not a source, it is a reference, as in it refers to other sources, which you may or may not deem as "technical." I included its references to the American Heritage Dictionaries and the Merriam Webster Medical, yes?

[boxhead]

Taken from Dictionary.com:

 

 

psy·chol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-kl-j)

n. pl. psy·chol·o·gies

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual' date=' group, or activity: the psychology of war.

3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point.

4. [i']Philosophy[/i]. The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

psy·chol·o·gy (s-kl-j)

n.

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, a group, or an activity.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

 

Main Entry: psy·chol·o·gy

Pronunciation: -jE

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural -gies

1 : the science of mind and behavior

2 a : the mental or behavioral characteristics typical of an individual or group or a particular form of behavior <mob psychology> <the psychology of arson> b : the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity <color psychology> <the psychology of learning>

3 : a treatise on or a school, system, or branch of psychology

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

 

psychology

n : the science of mental life [syn: psychological science]

 

but study is much more related with the4 art

[boxhead]

What we must keep in mind about psychology is that it is a science still much in its infancy.

 

The most sophisticated people people once believed that the earth was flat' date=' that the sun and moon and stars revolved around the earth, that their were only four elements (earth, air, water, fire), and in spontaneous generation, in phlogiston, that atoms were indivisible, etc...

 

Psychology IS a science. The reason that it hasn't advanced as it could have is due to ETHICS. Ethics prevents systematic experimentation on humans to be liberally carried out in the pursuit of knowledge. Imagine a physicist without calculus, or a biologist without a microscope. Psychologists must take indirect measurements to build a picture from imcomplete and hazy images of human behavior and mental processes. Like I said, give it a few more years, you'll see.[/quote']

history of psychology begins with art and ends with science as a major source.

[Flareon]

history of psychology begins with art and ends with science as a major source.

 

Beautifully said.

[Guest Mr Scientifi]

yes i also agree that psychology is definately a science...especially when you consider that everything done in psychology uses the SCIENTIFIC method

[Guest Mr Scientifi]

thats why psychologists dont waste time on questions such as is there a god, or what i the meaning of life

[Void]

Psychology IS a science. The reason that it hasn't advanced as it could have is due to ETHICS. Ethics prevents systematic experimentation on humans to be liberally carried out in the pursuit of knowledge. Imagine a physicist without calculus' date=' or a biologist without a microscope. Psychologists must take indirect measurements to build a picture from imcomplete and hazy images of human behavior and mental processes. Like I said, give it a few more years, you'll see.[/quote']

 

I disagree with your comment on ethics. That is a lame duck excuse for scientists who lack creativity. Every good experimenter knows that it takes a bit of fudging and inginuity to ask the questions ethical constaints would seemingly prevent.

 

Sure, Zimbardo's prison experiment would never pass IRB in today's universities, but that does not mean the concepts Zimbardo has forwarded cannot be tested in an ethical manner.

 

A far more pressing constraint, consists of the politcal and dogmatic barriers that often prohibit researchers from publishing papers, or conducting research in a given domain. With the current state of grant funding, it these barriers that should be illuminated and removed.

 

It should also be noted here, that the ART you speak of, often involves the interpretation of complex statistcal results. I was always instucted to "tell a story" about the data, to bring it to life in words that can be accessible to all those interested. If that is art, I ask what is good writing?

[Flareon]

It should also be noted here, that the ART you speak of, often involves the interpretation of complex statistcal results. I was always instucted to "tell a story" about the data, to bring it to life in words that can be accessible to all those interested. If that is art, I ask what is good writing?

 

Come again?

[Void]

Come again?

 

Sorry, that was a general comment for all the talk concerning the "art" aspect. I did not want to double post.

[Flareon]

Ah, I thought it was pointed at me.

 

Well, you make a good point there, as far as creativity and ingenuity being indispensible aspects of research.

 

But let me get this clear: are you stating that it would make zero difference in the advancement rate of psychology whether not human beings could be tested freely without the contraints of ethics?

 

You bring up politics and dogma which is an excellent point: but do you not see that ethics is human-made construct, existing hand-in-hand with politics and dogma? Therefore, perhaps we aren't in such a disagreement after all.

[Void]

Did we make incredible leaps ahead when there was no ethical standards? Did Watson HAVE to traumatize a young infant to demonstrate behaviorist tenets? Simply put, no. The advancement rate has been much more impacted by technology.

 

If every question can be approached through ethical means, then the question of advancement becomes moot anyhow. They should reveal the same answers.

 

Of course, you seemed to have neglected "natural experiments" that are utilized in psychology all the time and allow us to conduct work that would otherwise be unethical. For example:

 

Does the sexual preference of your parents influence the sexual preference of children?

 

This question would be unethical, if not impossible, to conduct in an experimental fashion. We can not assign sexuality to a partcipant. However, this experiment is being conducted everyday in this nation. A new population of homosexual parents are emerging. All we have to do is wait in the wings and collect the data.

 

Other examples include patients with specific brain traumas. Read "Anthropologist on Mars" by Oliver Sax. These are "natural experiments" that do not require the lesioning of actually healthy human brains (i.e. yours or mine).

 

I do recognize that ethics are socially constructed. At some detailed level politics do influence the ethics of some (i.e. Terri Shiavo), however the ethical standards to which I refer are at a general level, and merely ask that no harm, physical or psychological be experienced by the participant and their information be kept confidential. This is standard IRB stuff...

 

If you want to swath this conversation in gray, I won't object. However, there is a reasonable level and appropriate standards in which it can be evaluated.

[Flareon]

Yes, you can study patients with brain traumas. But then the post hoc study would not be experimental. Science depends on experimentation.

 

I never disagreed with you. You however, did not even answer my simple question.

[Void]

I'm sorry, which one? You asked two. One regarding advancement...In which I say, no, and one concerning ethics and politics, in which I stated my agreement, but it depends on the level of analysis. IRB's act in accordance to some global agreed upon act about scientific ethics, that I believe was put in place after WWII...not sure though...memory fails me now!

 

I would assert that science is not necessarily dependent on experimentation. Description of phenomena is just as important as the demonstration of causal relationships. Description usually comes first.

[Flareon]

I would assert that science is not necessarily dependent on experimentation. Description of phenomena is just as important as the demonstration of causal relationships. Description usually comes first.

 

You have made some valid points but I'm going to have disagree vehemently with you on that one. No googol bits of descriptive data will ever lead to a causal conclusion (this is one of the canons of science), only a correlation. One MUST conduct an experiment in order to determine cause and effect. Only by understanding these can one obtain the power of prediction. Science is NOTHING if one can not predict the behavior of nature.

 

I'm actually quite surprised that you say experimentation is not essential to science.

[Void]

And what is cause? Is it something "out there" in reality, or is it, has Hume contended a product of the mind? Constant conjunction or necessary connection? Even through experimentation we are unable to assert "certainty". Everything we know is probablility, and the degree of confidence you have in those predictions is what we call knowledge.

 

Let me show you how correlation can demonstrate causation. If I were to hit you in the face a, what was it, googol times? You would feel pain. We can calculate that correlation. Now does it makes sense that the pain caused me to hit you? Could the pain be the result of actions of some supernatural being? Might the pain be caused by some unknown third variable? The answer, in all probability would be no in each of these alternative explanations. Most likely, MY ACTIONS caused your pain, and I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it was my fist that CAUSED your pain.

 

The same thinking operates in a science such as psychology. IF it makes reasonable sense, and alternative hypotheses have been ruled out, then A leads to B.

 

You even impicitly acknowledge this in your last sentence. Prediction is knowledge.

[Mokele]

Most likely, MY ACTIONS caused your pain, and I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it was my fist that CAUSED your pain. The same thinking operates in a science such as psychology. IF it makes reasonable sense, and alternative hypotheses have been ruled out, then A leads to B.

 

You made an incorrect logical leap. Yes, correlation can tell us what is the *most likely* causation, and we can be 99.999% certain of that, but it can *never* give us 100% proof without experiment. And I can also be *wrong*, even with strong correlations.

 

Let's give a better example:

Say I'm a farmer, and I plant species X. On the years I have a dry spell, the plants do poorly, and they do better when wet. I could repeat this 1000 times and still get the same results. Does this mean plant species X requires lots of water to do well? According to you, yes, this establishes a causal connection.

 

But then I do *experiments*. I grow plant species X in sterile, controlled conditions and find out that it doesn't need much water at all. Closer observation reveals that there are two types of bugs in my fields, one that eats the plant, and one that parasitizes the plant-eating bugs. But the herbivore bugs can deal with drought, while the parasite species that controls them needs moisture. In dry seasons, the parasite species cannot control the herbivores, and the bugs cause the damage to the plants, not the weather itself.

 

The point is that a correlational study between crop yield and rainfall will give a strong, consistent, predictable relationship, but assuming that relationship is directly causal is *wrong*. Only once I experimented did I find that out.

 

You cannot assume causality from correlation, no matter how convincing it looks.

 

Mokele

[Flareon]

Let me show you how correlation can demonstrate causation. If I were to hit you in the face a, what was it, googol times? You would feel pain. We can calculate that correlation. Now does it makes sense that the pain caused me to hit you? Could the pain be the result of actions of some supernatural being? Might the pain be caused by some unknown third variable? The answer, in all probability would be no in each of these alternative explanations. Most likely, MY ACTIONS caused your pain, and I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it was my fist that CAUSED your pain.

 

If you want to resort to such a overly simple and frankly, dumb example of cause and effect, that's your perogative. I'm sure you can recall the famous ice cream sales and crime correlation.

 

IF it makes reasonable sense, and alternative hypotheses have been ruled out, then A leads to B.

 

Don't you know that there are theoretically infinite alternative hypotheses? And please do not use the phrase "reasonable sense" when talking about science. That's a sure path to error.

[Flareon]

Mokele, I totally agree (obviously). Finally some sanity.

[Void]

You made an incorrect logical leap. Yes, correlation can tell us what is the *most likely* causation, and we can be 99.999% certain of that, but it can *never* give us 100% proof without experiment. And I can also be *wrong*, even with strong correlations.

 

I never asserted 100% certainty. My whole post points to the logical argument that we can never know anything for "certain"...All knowledge is based on probability. In my example, one used by Hume himself IMO, I make a sensible assertion about the most probabilistic causal explanation. I can rule out other possible explanations, and increase the "confidence" of my probable causal factor.

 

 

Let's give a better example:

Say I'm a farmer' date=' and I plant species X. On the years I have a dry spell, the plants do poorly, and they do better when wet. I could repeat this 1000 times and still get the same results. Does this mean plant species X requires lots of water to do well? According to you, yes, this establishes a causal connection.

 

But then I do *experiments*. I grow plant species X in sterile, controlled conditions and find out that it doesn't need much water at all. Closer observation reveals that there are two types of bugs in my fields, one that eats the plant, and one that parasitizes the plant-eating bugs. But the herbivore bugs can deal with drought, while the parasite species that controls them needs moisture. In dry seasons, the parasite species cannot control the herbivores, and the bugs cause the damage to the plants, not the weather itself.

 

The point is that a correlational study between crop yield and rainfall will give a strong, consistent, predictable relationship, but assuming that relationship is directly causal is *wrong*. Only once I experimented did I find that out.

 

You cannot assume causality from correlation, no matter how convincing it looks.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

This is a great example of the "third variable" problem, a classic criticism of correlational results. However, it is still only probability, given that, although the bugs may be a major causal determinant, there are other factors that we just don't measure. For example, the reduced rainfall may also weaken the plants, making them more susceptable to the herbivore bug's tendancies. It may be an additive effect, a multiplicative effect, you don't know, because you haven't measured "everything". You have not controlled for all possible explanations.

 

Point being, the results are most likely multipy determined, and we can account for only X amount of variation with your bug hypothesis. There will always be unexplained variation (error) that might be explained if we knew everything. Thus, perfect prediction is impossible.

 

I like to think about it this way: Certain methodological designs allow for more confidence in the assertion of causality than others. Think of them on a scale of "ability to infer causation". Experimentation, obviously provides the most confidence. Correaltional studies may be weak, but still, in some cases, can make a very strong case for phenomena we cannot experimentally test. Just think about longitudinal data that uses correlation. One can even have more confidence in causal relationships when these methods are employed.

[Flareon]

I never asserted 100% certainty. My whole post points to the logical argument that we can never know anything for "certain"...All knowledge is based on probability. In my example' date=' one used by Hume himself IMO, I make a sensible assertion about the most probabilistic causal explanation. I can rule out other possible explanations, and increase the "confidence" of my probable causal factor.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, sure that's what you said.