This discussion is closed.
Oswy
Badges: 15
#81
Report 13 years ago
#81
(Original post by Melkor)
The point I'm making is, psychologists like to claim psychology is a science. It isn't.
How do you define 'science'?
0
miniaturexhero
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 13 years ago
#82
I don't think we can label subjects as MMs.
I couldn't pass a Psychology A-Level if my life depended on it.
It's all too long-winded >.< My idea of an essay is about five lines...

But yeah...
I guess in terms of respect, some courses afford more than others.
Plus are harder to get into...
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#83
Report 13 years ago
#83
Exact figures for ECT success rate please. Also, depression is not something that should be defined as an illness, in the same way happiness isn't, it is culturally defined and this is something many anthropologists have proven in their studies. But then, was it not psychologists who took so much pleasure in the liberal use of lobotomising patients? I don't know which I'd rather be, schizophrenic, or a vegetable.

A forget the name, but a study was performed a few years back in which a researcher sent various actors to psychologists, all claiming they could hear voices. Many of them were locked away, administered drugs etc. The funniest thing was, however, that they were all diagnoses differently and given different drugs! Imagine if real doctors did the same thing.

Barbaric pseudoscience.
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#84
Report 13 years ago
#84
(Original post by Oswy)
How do you define 'science'?
A process of hypothesis and research which leads on to undeniable, evident, non negotiable results. Certainly not the discontented disagreements between psychologists every time a new illness is made up.
0
ashy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#85
Report 13 years ago
#85
(Original post by Melkor)
A process of hypothesis and research which leads on to undeniable, evident, non negotiable results. Certainly not the discontented disagreements between psychologists every time a new illness is made up.
May I ask what you study?
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#86
Report 13 years ago
#86
Me? Sociology.
0
ashy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#87
Report 13 years ago
#87
(Original post by Melkor)
Me? Sociology.
Thought as much, you seem to know quite a bit about Pysch whilst being quite obviously apart from it :p: And the two normally go quite well together!
0
Oswy
Badges: 15
#88
Report 13 years ago
#88
(Original post by Melkor)
A process of hypothesis and research which leads on to undeniable, evident, non negotiable results. Certainly not the discontented disagreements between psychologists every time a new illness is made up.
Ok, and which sciences are free from disagreements between practitioners?
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#89
Report 13 years ago
#89
I think I was quite biased by a tutor who also disliked it :-)
It's just always got on my nerves that Psychology designates itself a science, when like Sociology, Anthropology, or any other social-ologys you can think of, describes with in precision.

My idea of science, and maybe this is too subjective, as it is my feeling..Is that science should be about experimentation resulting in hard fact, undeniable until someone PROVES otherwise.

The problem with subjects such as Sociology and Psychology, are their debate and changing opinions and interpretations. Psychology and Sociology can be used to generalise, create basic ideas about things and how they will -probably- function. 2 Psychologists might debate endless the true cause of any given mental condition, however I doubt 2 physicists would debate what an atom is.
0
GodspeedGehenna
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 13 years ago
#90
(Original post by Melkor)
Exact figures for ECT success rate please. Also, depression is not something that should be defined as an illness, in the same way happiness isn't, it is culturally defined and this is something many anthropologists have proven in their studies. But then, was it not psychologists who took so much pleasure in the liberal use of lobotomising patients? I don't know which I'd rather be, schizophrenic, or a vegetable.

A forget the name, but a study was performed a few years back in which a researcher sent various actors to psychologists, all claiming they could hear voices. Many of them were locked away, administered drugs etc. The funniest thing was, however, that they were all diagnoses differently and given different drugs! Imagine if real doctors did the same thing.

Barbaric pseudoscience.
ECT has undergone a complete image makeover in the last twenty years. It has regained respectability. Many psychiatrists now consider it an efficient way to relieve severe depression or to break a manic cycle for the manic depressive. Its success rate, according to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is 80%, considerably higher than the 50% to 60% success rate of most antidepressant medications. And according to ECT advocates, it can restore a severely depressed or manic patient to health in half the time it takes medication - - sometimes as little as three weeks to reach a therapeutic level.

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communit...le_popolos.asp
http://www.electroboy.com/electroshocktherapy.htm

Those patients who do receive ECT are those having manic psychotic episodes, not someone who just comes along saying "Owh, I feel a little under the weather." ECT is a last resort method, rarely used. The majority of cases of depression are treated using therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Rational-Emotive Therapy.

The experiment you refer to was performed by Rosenhan, and all of the pseudo-patients were admited for an average of 19 days before being discovered and released. All but one were all given the same diagnosis. I dont know where you're getting these facts. Oh and you refer to "real doctors".. They were diagnosed and treated by Psychiatrists, i.e. qualified medical doctors. But yes, "real" doctors DO do the same thing. People can get second opinions and receive completely different diagnosis and treatments.
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/rgos...D/chapter8.pdf
0
ashy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#91
Report 13 years ago
#91
In Physics, it's true that once there is undeniable proof that something is true, it is almost universally accepted. If something then turns up with disproves the original theory, then the theory is modified/improved to fit the new information. The thing is at the esoteric end of the Physics world where there is no available proof (i.e. String Theory etc), there are extreme levels of immaturity in arguments. I suppose that's the same thing that happens in Psychology et al where the proof just ain't there.
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#92
Report 13 years ago
#92
(Original post by Oswy)
Ok, and which sciences are free from disagreements between practitioners?
In all subjects, the far out theory (i.e string theory, which I won't lie, I have no knowledge of), is debated among scientists, as it is a theory.

However scientists would not debate the nature of particles, atoms, of heat and cold. An engineer would not debate the workings of a machine because through experimentation and research he understands exactly how it works, there is no debate on this. A doctor would not debate symptoms of cancer, and a biologist would not argue about the nature of flu.

All of these things, through true scientific method, have been verified and are agreed on.

What, within Psychology, is universally agreed on by the vast majority of Psychologists? You people are still debating nature versus nurture, and until proof of either is found, EVERYTHING you know is ubsubstantiable theory.
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#93
Report 13 years ago
#93
The difference is Ashy, your subject is grounded in reality through maths and proof -Psychology is not!

There are even some psychologists out there who accept freuds theory of repression! There isn't much one can do but sigh, when a child is diagnosed with 'lack of attention span' syndrome. If psychologists had it there way, the entire human race would be a non varying group of robots, all with personalities deemed healthy but the god like psychologists.

It is indeed, a good thing, that no real scientist takes them seriously!
0
Oswy
Badges: 15
#94
Report 13 years ago
#94
(Original post by Melkor)
I think I was quite biased by a tutor who also disliked it :-)
It's just always got on my nerves that Psychology designates itself a science, when like Sociology, Anthropology, or any other social-ologys you can think of, describes with in precision.

My idea of science, and maybe this is too subjective, as it is my feeling..Is that science should be about experimentation resulting in hard fact, undeniable until someone PROVES otherwise.

The problem with subjects such as Sociology and Psychology, are their debate and changing opinions and interpretations. Psychology and Sociology can be used to generalise, create basic ideas about things and how they will -probably- function. 2 Psychologists might debate endless the true cause of any given mental condition, however I doubt 2 physicists would debate what an atom is.
I don't have a problem with your sentiment but I think there's a danger of overstating what 'hard' sciences do. For example, much in physics is predicated on models which are approximations of the processes of nature, but they're still models, not a direct 'observation' of how the world is. Bearing this in mind, experimentation can only affirm the viability of a given model as an approximation (we can never actually 'know' how the world really is, in strict epistemological terms). The history of science has been filled with changing theories and disputes. Newtonian physics was regarded as something of a 'final solution' until further experimentation, and Relativity Theory, demonstrated that Newton's models only worked up to a certain point and were, ultimately, misleading.

The two things which I think render something 'science' are falsifiability of a model and its predictive power through, as you say, observation and experimentation. Within this paradigm I think tha there's no reason to regard the study of the human mind (psychology) or of societies (sociology) as incapable of being science. Indeed, some 'hard' sciences, such as astronomy, have little scope for experimentation and are reliant on observation being subject to competing theories by virtue of their 'fit'.
0
GodspeedGehenna
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#95
Report 13 years ago
#95
(Original post by Melkor)
If psychologists had it there way, the entire human race would be a non varying group of robots, all with personalities deemed healthy but the god like psychologists.
Ah darn.. You figured out our entire plot. Damn, and we were working so hard too..

We would of gotten away with it if it wern't for you darn meddling kids.
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#96
Report 13 years ago
#96
(Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
Ah darn.. You figured out our entire plot. Damn, and we were working so hard too..

We would of gotten away with it if it wern't for you darn meddling kids.
haha :-)
0
Melkor
Badges: 0
#97
Report 13 years ago
#97
(Original post by Oswy)
I don't have a problem with your sentiment but I think there's a danger of overstating what 'hard' sciences do. For example, much in physics is predicated on models which are approximations of the processes of nature, but they're still models, not a direct 'observation' of how the world is. Bearing this in mind, experimentation can only affirm the viability of a given model as an approximation (we can never actually 'know' how the world really is, in strict epistemological terms). The history of science has been filled with changing theories and disputes. Newtonian physics was regarded as something of a 'final solution' until further experimentation, and Relativity Theory, demonstrated that Newton's models only worked up to a certain point and were, ultimately, misleading.

The two things which I think render something 'science' are falsifiability of a model and its predictive power through, as you say, observation and experimentation. Within this paradigm I think tha there's no reason to regard the study of the human mind (psychology) or of societies (sociology) as incapable of being science. Indeed, some 'hard' sciences, such as astronomy, have little scope for experimentation and are reliant on observation being subject to competing theories by virtue of their 'fit'.
I have no problem with your sentiment either, and am entirely respectful of your opinion. I am glad you would regard Sociology and Psychology as capable of being sciences, which I would agree with, to an extent. I just disagree when Psychologists feels superior to the other social sciences, and claim to be the only true science amongst them.

I will always have far more respect for the true scientists, than I will for my fellow social scientists, as I feel they have conclusive evidence and they put it to good use. It's just, I enjoy the social sciences more!
0
GodspeedGehenna
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#98
Report 13 years ago
#98
(Original post by Melkor)
The difference is Ashy, your subject is grounded in reality through maths and proof -Psychology is not!
I bet if you were alive in the 1500's, you would of been one of those laughing at the notion that the world wasn't flat because there "wasnt any proof".

Considering in recent years we have only just developed non-invasive methods of investigating the brain, I think the field of Psychology has done a pretty damn good job of using scientific method to investigate such abstract concepts. However, since the development of such technology, the field has exploded with discoveries and is continuing to doing so everyday. I for one am quite excited as what the future has to hold for Psychology as a science; I very much hope I can be there at the frontline contributing to research opportunities that modern technology has offered us.
0
Sidhe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 13 years ago
#99
(Original post by NJA)
Nice font, but apart from those that like a career in number games, what practical benefit has this afforded?

I'm not saying it hasn't, I know technology doesn't just float down from on high or get dug up . . . I'm interested to be educated
It's called the Laplace equation.

Useful in fluid dynamics,aerodynamics, astronomy and electromagnetism. In fact useful in anything that uses fields in it's theories. Simply though it enables positions from source points to be mapped or potentials in both two and three dimensions, so essentially it's an extremely important piece of maths that is has more uses than you've had hot dinners.

Probably of most interest to your physicist though is it provides an integral part of the solution to the Schrödinger equation. Which maps models of wavefunctions in atomic systems.

$-\hbar^2\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\  partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}\right) \psi = -\hbar^2\nabla^2 \psi$

You'll recognise the Laplace equation here^

He took then mapped this onto this simple equation, the kinetic and potential energy of a plane wave.

E=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V

And came up with what is probably one of the most important equations of the 20th century and is integral to theoretical and experimental physics. Schrödinger used this equation to map the spectral lines in hydrogen.

$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\Psi + V\Psi$

where

\nabla^2

is the Laplacian.

You'll have to excuse me I love pissing around with Latex

Just in case anyone thinks I'm remotely trying to claim this as anything to do with me in any way shape or form, it's not although I wish it was, credit goes to Schrödinger and those who came before.
0
MediterraneanX
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#100
Report 13 years ago
#100
I did psychology and photography for alevel, alongside the more traditional subjects of french and english language and lit. The hardest for me was actually photography, due to me have no artistic capability whatsoever and just wanting a fun subject, I actually really rate anyone good at art/photography/design etc. because its a talent that can't really be learnt. Out of all the subjects my school offered (a huge variety of mainly traditional subjects) psychology got the lowest pass rate and the most drop outs, not because it was boring - it's actually very interesting, just pretty damn hard. The only reason I can see psychology being a MM subject is because its relatively new, it is not easy. Having said that all my friends that did sociology got A's, but whether thats because they are clever/hardworkers or because the course is easy is another matter, I didn't study it so I can't judge.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (62)
12.89%
Virtual campus tours/open days (112)
23.28%
Live streaming events (44)
9.15%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (46)
9.56%
A uni comparison tool (109)
22.66%
An in-person event when available (108)
22.45%

Watched Threads

View All