Is Psychology a science?
Created | Updated Jun 18, 2005
My contention is that it is an art form and therefore should not be treated as a science. Here are my reasons.
The idea of psychology grew out of natural philosophy, a subject for thinkers and philosophizers. After the Enlightenment a field of "Natural Philosophy" grew up and began to split off the natural sciences. It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that there were any "scientific" theories in this field, mostly speculations.
The first person who desired to separate this into a science was Freud who started as a neurologist (a brain and nervous system doctor) who sought explanations for some of the symptoms that were reported to him and found nothing physically wrong. Still no real reason for denying the science description yet.
Freud's work took place in Victorian era Vienna, a place full of the frustrations of sexual repression and plenty of sexual activity, and Freud certainly saw the effects of sex everywhere he looked. The writings from this era of psychology are full of Freud's own musings about his patients and little of the patients themselves. Frequently he contradicted them about their own experiences and left them with accepting his description or nothing.
One cannot claim that nothing of value has happened in this field of study. But explanations of cures are mostly the product of the patients own efforts, and little of value the "doctor" performs. The etiology of disease is such that a known cause, with known symptoms, and a known cure carefully laid out with the course and explanations of why each step occurs and where to look for the signs of cure.
This has not happened with the field of psychology. In the last decade or so, the biology of the brain seems to be the course for describing the cause, symptom and cure and it is well laid out. This is where Psychiatry shines. No amount of talking will bring about the cures that the medical applications of drugs have brought about. We have seen the effects of chemicals on the brain and actually have cures for severe forms of what used to be called psychological trauma.
No, we have not found cures for each and every symptom but the molecular biologists are still working. What can we say for the talkers? There are 400 different types of therapy each has their own theory of how to talk a person into behaving normally. Can they all be right? If they are, then how is that a science. With disagreements and/or differing interpertations of the symptoms, no known causes, and 400 different ways to treat those symptoms in a science that is over 100 years old (yes, it has been that long)
The root problem is how to define normal, and is it right to expect everyone to conform to whatever we determine that is? Some talkers are merely paliative (feel good) therapies, do we really need PHD's getting paid big bucks for that? (In countries such as Britain the government covers their salaries and the only charges are to the taxpayers.) Others will use persuasive devices including torture (electroshock therapy is making a comeback). Mostly the course is a type of persuasion to act normally.
If we relegate Psychology to an art form is it any less valuable than as a science? Well, insurance wouldn't pay for it (that's for sure). But it wouldn't stop people from getting degrees and studying it. There are many university laboratories that do experiments on mice or other animals to find out such things as how we think (a form of biology not psychology) and that would not stop. There is a field of cognitive psychology that does research into such things and that is a science. It doesn't counsel people though.
As for our higher functions such as our "spirits" well we have religion, and spiritual counselors. These people use non-material explanations for why things happen. They have been proven to actually help people also, and they make no claims to any scientific knowledge, are not required to prove things logically. They are of value for what they do.
Where does that leave the psychologists? When an expensive psychologist gave exit interviews to the patients of his that were cured. He asked them "what is it that I did that made the most difference" The most prominent answer was they got tired of paying his fees and they just decided to change for themsleves. What does that say about the science of psychology?
The idea of psychology grew out of natural philosophy, a subject for thinkers and philosophizers. After the Enlightenment a field of "Natural Philosophy" grew up and began to split off the natural sciences. It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that there were any "scientific" theories in this field, mostly speculations.
The first person who desired to separate this into a science was Freud who started as a neurologist (a brain and nervous system doctor) who sought explanations for some of the symptoms that were reported to him and found nothing physically wrong. Still no real reason for denying the science description yet.
Freud's work took place in Victorian era Vienna, a place full of the frustrations of sexual repression and plenty of sexual activity, and Freud certainly saw the effects of sex everywhere he looked. The writings from this era of psychology are full of Freud's own musings about his patients and little of the patients themselves. Frequently he contradicted them about their own experiences and left them with accepting his description or nothing.
One cannot claim that nothing of value has happened in this field of study. But explanations of cures are mostly the product of the patients own efforts, and little of value the "doctor" performs. The etiology of disease is such that a known cause, with known symptoms, and a known cure carefully laid out with the course and explanations of why each step occurs and where to look for the signs of cure.
This has not happened with the field of psychology. In the last decade or so, the biology of the brain seems to be the course for describing the cause, symptom and cure and it is well laid out. This is where Psychiatry shines. No amount of talking will bring about the cures that the medical applications of drugs have brought about. We have seen the effects of chemicals on the brain and actually have cures for severe forms of what used to be called psychological trauma.
No, we have not found cures for each and every symptom but the molecular biologists are still working. What can we say for the talkers? There are 400 different types of therapy each has their own theory of how to talk a person into behaving normally. Can they all be right? If they are, then how is that a science. With disagreements and/or differing interpertations of the symptoms, no known causes, and 400 different ways to treat those symptoms in a science that is over 100 years old (yes, it has been that long)
The root problem is how to define normal, and is it right to expect everyone to conform to whatever we determine that is? Some talkers are merely paliative (feel good) therapies, do we really need PHD's getting paid big bucks for that? (In countries such as Britain the government covers their salaries and the only charges are to the taxpayers.) Others will use persuasive devices including torture (electroshock therapy is making a comeback). Mostly the course is a type of persuasion to act normally.
If we relegate Psychology to an art form is it any less valuable than as a science? Well, insurance wouldn't pay for it (that's for sure). But it wouldn't stop people from getting degrees and studying it. There are many university laboratories that do experiments on mice or other animals to find out such things as how we think (a form of biology not psychology) and that would not stop. There is a field of cognitive psychology that does research into such things and that is a science. It doesn't counsel people though.
As for our higher functions such as our "spirits" well we have religion, and spiritual counselors. These people use non-material explanations for why things happen. They have been proven to actually help people also, and they make no claims to any scientific knowledge, are not required to prove things logically. They are of value for what they do.
Where does that leave the psychologists? When an expensive psychologist gave exit interviews to the patients of his that were cured. He asked them "what is it that I did that made the most difference" The most prominent answer was they got tired of paying his fees and they just decided to change for themsleves. What does that say about the science of psychology?
