Date of publication: 2017-09-03 09:55
When this paradigmatic mess is then combined with other problems people point out, such as how complicated animals/humans are, the problems of consciousness, the problems of human science that blend objective and subjective, the problems of the role of science in culture (and on and on), the confusion becomes overwhelming.
Take the famous Popperian example hypothesis: All swans are white. How do we know for sure that we will not see a black, green or hot pink swan in the future? So even if there has never been a sighting of a non-white swan, we still haven't really proven our hypothesis.
The problem is that even if psychologists use scientific method (which we all know is a major problem, as many many pseudopsychologists all around the world apparently don't require any scientific evidence to air their views) the results of their studies are way too often unreplicable (I've read somwhere that it's called by other scientists a replication crisis). Then making the stuff even more vague is definitely what would a person making psychological stuff for living do. I think that the psychological pseudoscience is used as a mean of abuse (and is in fact a magnet for all kinds of psychopaths) or even a weapon of terror in so many countries in the world, that it is really a final call for scientists to do something about it and save their face.
When asked the question Who is the parent of psychology? , many people answer Freud. Whether this is the case or not is open to debate, but if we were to ask who the parent of experimental psychology is, few would be likely to respond in the same way. So where did modern experimental psychology come from and why?
Stories are posted daily, selected from press materials provided by hundreds of sources from around the world. Links to sources and relevant journal citations (where available) are included at the end of each post.
The Conversation UK receives funding from Hefce, Hefcw, SAGE, SFC, RCUK, The Nuffield Foundation, The Ogden Trust, The Royal Society, The Wellcome Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and The Alliance for Useful Evidence, as well as sixty five university members.
Verification (. proof) may be impossible. We can never really, truly prove a hypothesis, we may find results to support it until the end of time, but we will never be 655% confident that it is really true.
Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a out of 5. How about you?
By alternating school terms and paid co-op work terms throughout your degree, you can explore new career areas and types of employers as your career interests evolve.
In a similar way, psychologists use human behaviour as a clue to the workings of the mind. Although we cannot observe the mind directly, everything we do, think, feel and say is determined by the functioning of the mind. So psychologists take human behaviour as the raw data for testing their theories about how the mind works.
Some have argued that psychoanalysis has approached the status more of a religion than a science, but it is not alone in being accused of unfalsifiable (evolutionary theory has too 655 why is anything the way it is?
o Instead, experiments and observations are carried out carefully and reported in detail so that other investigators can repeat and attempt to verify the work.
Just right at the begining of this article, it starts with "we need to flesh them (the definiton of science) out a bit"
"I consider science to be." that is just an opinion.
The reason many are rightfully skeptical about its status is found in the body of scientific knowledge—psychology has failed to produce a cumulative body of knowledge that has a clear conceptual core that is consensually agreed upon by mainstream psychological experts. The great scholar of the field, Paul Meehl, captured this perfectly when he proclaimed that the sad fact that in psychology: