Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colour Me Pretty)
    The only reason psychology isn't classed as a science is because it doesn't have one dominant paradigm, technically it is classed as a pre science. However, because it has many different paradigms it could be classed as post science. :p:
    I agree with you here. Despite Kuhn arguing that a science should have a dominant paradigm, there are numerous approaches in psychology, each favouring differing paradigms.

    The biological approach, which assumes that there are biological bases to human behaviour (e.g. genetic inheritance, biochemistry and brain structure) favours more scientific research methodologies such as brain scans and twin studies.

    On the flipside you have the psychodynamic approach which assumes that most human behaviour is driven by unconscious forces, and that childhood has a significant impact on adult behaviour. This approach favours case studies as its research methodology and Freud often used this approach, i.e. dream analysis which you mentioned.

    There are concerns about psychology not being objective as voiced by Popper. However, the more scientific psychologists do use the double blind procedure and strive to increase inter-rater reliability, and they do follow the deductive model by generating a theory, from which hypotheses that are drawn can be tested using a tightly controlled experiment from which empirical data is gathered and analysed statistically.

    Anyway, should psychology aim to be a science? It is difficult to explain human behaviour and experience in terms of scientific phenomena alone. Human experiences are at times difficult to subjective to scientific laws and principles and at times might be too reductionist to study human behaviour in laboratory conditions via the manipulation of the IV and the measurement of the DV to generate laws that apply to all as this ignores the rich complexity of human experiences, which might at times be better studied via the alternative, less scientific methodology, such as the case study.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    Who cares, Chemistry eats psychology for breakfast anyway.
    (Who in turn is the abused wife of Physics)
    I'd hate to think what Mathematics does to Physics in its spare time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathew551)
    I'd hate to think what Mathematics does to Physics in its spare time.
    Very true!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    personal interest, that disapated as I realised psychology at AS is so Micky mouse
    End of thread.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Have you actually studied Psychology further than GCSE? If not, then you have zero right to comment.
    There's a lot of chemistry and biology included- along with loads of different theories. And seeing as even a lot of the top universities class it as a BSc degree- I think that proves it.

    I can only assume this was an attempt to troll- well done, you got the red gems you were after.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    isn't Economics classed as a social science...in which case...F U Biatch!!!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    Seriously, Psychology and sociology are not a science, standing around outside Mcdonalds with a clip board asking about dreams is so unscientific.
    Someone came through a Middle Class Grammar school. Forget AS psychology, if you actually talked to someone competent with a PhD in psychology you'd realise there are a lot of options, one I know earns £34/hr and that is just a part time lecturing job 2 days a week. That's 8 hours a day, 37 weeks at least per year. You do the math.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Psychology and psychiatry often do mixed research together, so there is definitely a blurring of lines, especially when you reach PhD psychology level.
    As for sociology, I've never studied it, so can't really say either way.

    I don't see why it makes much of a difference... calling something a "science" doesn't automatically make it a more difficult subject.
    "A rose by any other name..?"
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    None of those subjects actually study society, so it's already doing something that those subjects don't do on their own or working with each other. English Literature makes uses of all the same disciplines, but I doubt you would argue it shouldn't be a subset of the others.
    English Literature is different as, even when English Literature uses facts as its inspiration (which it doesn't have to do, other than by using a generally agreed structure of sentences) it doesn't have to be factual itself. English Literature can be written by someone who is not knowingly making any reference to any political, historical or economic point even if they seem to unavoidably/ accidentally do so. A story set under the sea, for example.

    If Politics is a study of the blueprint of a way of living that some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have discussed and used and History is a study of what some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have done then is Sociology a study of what the majority do?

    The distinction seems to be less about how different Sociology is from those other disciplines than from who it concentrates on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    English Literature is different as, even when English Literature uses facts as its inspiration (which it doesn't have to do, other than by using a generally agreed structure of sentences) it doesn't have to be factual itself. English Literature can be written by someone who is not knowingly making any reference to any political, historical or economic point even if they seem to unavoidably/ accidentally do so. A story set under the sea, for example.

    If Politics is a study of the blueprint of a way of living that some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have discussed and used and History is a study of what some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have done then is Sociology a study of what the majority do?

    The distinction seems to be less about how different Sociology is from those other disciplines than from who it concentrates on.
    History is the study of things that have happened. Politics is the study of political structures, how they function, their aims, etc. and the ideologies.

    Sociology is the study of society, how it affects us, its differing structures across cultures, changes in society, etc. I'm not a Sociologist, so I can't go into much detail on it.

    History doesn't study society, though it may provide illumination on older societies and how they've changed. Politics only studies how we rule ourselves, which does not necessarily have much to do with society as a phenomenon.

    Have a wee gander.

    I wasn't speaking of English Literature from an author's viewpoint, silly: I was speaking of it as an academic discipline, where students, or lecturers, analyse books and poems in various ways: historical context, political beliefs, psychological methods, cultural beliefs, etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathew551)
    I agree with you here. Despite Kuhn arguing that a science should have a dominant paradigm, there are numerous approaches in psychology, each favouring differing paradigms.

    The biological approach, which assumes that there are biological bases to human behaviour (e.g. genetic inheritance, biochemistry and brain structure) favours more scientific research methodologies such as brain scans and twin studies.

    On the flipside you have the psychodynamic approach which assumes that most human behaviour is driven by unconscious forces, and that childhood has a significant impact on adult behaviour. This approach favours case studies as its research methodology and Freud often used this approach, i.e. dream analysis which you mentioned.

    There are concerns about psychology not being objective as voiced by Popper. However, the more scientific psychologists do use the double blind procedure and strive to increase inter-rater reliability, and they do follow the deductive model by generating a theory, from which hypotheses that are drawn can be tested using a tightly controlled experiment from which empirical data is gathered and analysed statistically.

    Anyway, should psychology aim to be a science? It is difficult to explain human behaviour and experience in terms of scientific phenomena alone. Human experiences are at times difficult to subjective to scientific laws and principles and at times might be too reductionist to study human behaviour in laboratory conditions via the manipulation of the IV and the measurement of the DV to generate laws that apply to all as this ignores the rich complexity of human experiences, which might at times be better studied via the alternative, less scientific methodology, such as the case study.

    In my opinion psychology is a science, but it's often dismissed as not being one because there's no ''clear'' answers and because some people view it as ''soft''.
    However I think people who dismiss it as not being a science based on the former are quite ignorant. There's no way we can gain concrete knowledge of human behaviour because every human is different. If we could accumulate evidence that was absolute then the human race would be screwed. It's the individual varitations that has alllowed the human race to survive.

    In terms of psychology being viewed ''soft''; it's completely subjective. You could argue because we are studying our own species and behaviours we come into contact everyday it's a subject we have the most natural knowledge of.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrospect)
    Ignoring the trolling...

    It depends on your definition of 'science'. A general example - a sociologist may use scientific methods to study social phenomena. Does that not make his study of sociology 'scientific'?




    You totally study AQA Psychology, don't you? :mmm:
    Maybe.:ahee:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Social sciences are sciences in that they use some scientific methodologies to prove their theories. However, they are not pure sciences, in that they do not have one definitive answer for example:

    Chemistry: Assign these structures to a point group
    Sociology: Critically consider the argument for and against social work practice being based on research evidence. To what extent might this undermine social workers’ discretion to select and apply theories? Answer with reference to the Department of Health’s guidance on assessing children in need.

    So with the chemistry question, there is only going to be one correct answer, whereas the sociology question doesn't have one distinct answer, it's all about structuring an arguement and drawing a conclusion, but it does still involve some interpretation of data
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    im sure there is some psychological bull**** to how it does.
    you seem cognitively unstable
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Social Scientists do not regard themselves as Natural Scientists.

    They are not trying to compete with natural science in the way they study things.

    A social scientists ontology and epistemology is completely different do that of a natural scientist, hence why they choose to look at the areas they study, in the way they do.

    Furthermore, Social Science is actually described as being the link between the contenious divide of science v humanties and does not claim to fall ino either camp.

    So stop asking such stupid questions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Personally I'm finding my Social Sciencey degree scientific enough for my humanities based brain.


    This thread is now about Panda dogs!



    Is it a dog, is it a panda? Only Science can tell us the answers.
    three pages later and the question hasn't been answered
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd learn to use an apostrophe before I started criticising academic disciplines.

    Might just be me though.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.