It's too complicated to become a science.We're not yet at the point where we can understand everything about humans, and thus it can't yet be a science, but like everything else it is in fact a science that can be written down.
In psychology, every individual's personality is different (whether you measure it by MBTI or big five is irrelevant), meaning that every individual response to a test will be different. Science can't handle that. In physics, all electrons in the known universe behave in exactly the same way. In psychology, all people are different. This known, basic premise of psychology violates the preconditions of the scientific principle.
Quote from: Royal Light on December 27, 2014, 03:42:57 PMIt's too complicated to become a science.We're not yet at the point where we can understand everything about humans, and thus it can't yet be a science, but like everything else it is in fact a science that can be written down.I neglected to mention what you said is absolutely nonsensical.
I'll just focus on the mental health aspect because broader psychology is a far less clear science.So the science behind Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a demonstrable biological problem, brought about by variable factors. It could be genetics, life events, trauma or anything but even those 'psychological' events and factors hold a significant biological role through things like Neurotransmitters. The symptoms do vary, but to expect a patient to display 100% of the symptoms 100% of the time is as flawed as expecting someone with a common cold to always have a sore throat. Some do, some don't, it depends on the situation.Look at it like a broken leg, you can break it by jumping off a building or being run over. It's still a broken leg and the way in which you fix it might vary somewhat depending on the fracture but you still set the bone and sort it out. Similar approach with Depression, figure out the best way to treat it and go with that. Usually talking therapies combined with anti-depressants has the best chance of successful treatment.It isn't an exact science, because it's in it's infancy. And because it deals with incredibly complex living things in a less than tangible form >_>You aren't able to *see* the broken bone in their mind, you have to work out where it is and how to fix it through talking to the patient <.<Side pointQuoteIn psychology, every individual's personality is different (whether you measure it by MBTI or big five is irrelevant), meaning that every individual response to a test will be different. Science can't handle that. In physics, all electrons in the known universe behave in exactly the same way. In psychology, all people are different. This known, basic premise of psychology violates the preconditions of the scientific principle.Actually human behaviour tends to follow a lot of patterns, it might seem like people are individuals but when you get a large enough sample you will have those who do the exact same thing and have similar personalities etc.More broadly, medical psychology is in it's relative infancy. I'd say it's something like early teens.If you remember how hamfisted and god-awful physical medicine used to be, and how precise/3spoopy5me it can be now, that's the rough parallel I'd draw.As we get better at profiling people, mapping brains and understanding what makes people tick - I expect to see some pretty drastic improvements in the scientific precision of mental healthcare <.<Final loose point, when dealing with meatbags things will never be straightforwards. Which is why the rainmen go to the physics labs and the lunatics go to the psych labs >_>
I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're talking. There is no limit or partition to "science". A plumber who decides to test his hypothesis of why your sink is bust is using the scientific method as far as it matters. Psychologists do this in the same way - it can be difficult to account for variation in behaviour, but it's quite easy to determine where the fringe lies. It's not that psychology somehow reject science, it's merely that the instruments we use aren't as fine-tuned as those we use for physics.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on December 27, 2014, 04:41:26 PMI'll just focus on the mental health aspect because broader psychology is a far less clear science.So the science behind Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a demonstrable biological problem, brought about by variable factors. It could be genetics, life events, trauma or anything but even those 'psychological' events and factors hold a significant biological role through things like Neurotransmitters. The symptoms do vary, but to expect a patient to display 100% of the symptoms 100% of the time is as flawed as expecting someone with a common cold to always have a sore throat. Some do, some don't, it depends on the situation.Look at it like a broken leg, you can break it by jumping off a building or being run over. It's still a broken leg and the way in which you fix it might vary somewhat depending on the fracture but you still set the bone and sort it out. Similar approach with Depression, figure out the best way to treat it and go with that. Usually talking therapies combined with anti-depressants has the best chance of successful treatment.It isn't an exact science, because it's in it's infancy. And because it deals with incredibly complex living things in a less than tangible form >_>You aren't able to *see* the broken bone in their mind, you have to work out where it is and how to fix it through talking to the patient <.<Side pointQuoteIn psychology, every individual's personality is different (whether you measure it by MBTI or big five is irrelevant), meaning that every individual response to a test will be different. Science can't handle that. In physics, all electrons in the known universe behave in exactly the same way. In psychology, all people are different. This known, basic premise of psychology violates the preconditions of the scientific principle.Actually human behaviour tends to follow a lot of patterns, it might seem like people are individuals but when you get a large enough sample you will have those who do the exact same thing and have similar personalities etc.More broadly, medical psychology is in it's relative infancy. I'd say it's something like early teens.If you remember how hamfisted and god-awful physical medicine used to be, and how precise/3spoopy5me it can be now, that's the rough parallel I'd draw.As we get better at profiling people, mapping brains and understanding what makes people tick - I expect to see some pretty drastic improvements in the scientific precision of mental healthcare <.<Final loose point, when dealing with meatbags things will never be straightforwards. Which is why the rainmen go to the physics labs and the lunatics go to the psych labs >_>Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 27, 2014, 03:53:20 PMI'm not sure I entirely understand what you're talking. There is no limit or partition to "science". A plumber who decides to test his hypothesis of why your sink is bust is using the scientific method as far as it matters. Psychologists do this in the same way - it can be difficult to account for variation in behaviour, but it's quite easy to determine where the fringe lies. It's not that psychology somehow reject science, it's merely that the instruments we use aren't as fine-tuned as those we use for physics.I think it makes a lot more sense now, thanks.
text
20% that the person will cry40% that the person will drink beer and ignore it for as long as possible (as shown by early childhood bla blab bla)5% that the person will laugh10% that the person will be happy
Why do clinical psychologists reject science?
