Psychology: Soft Science?

[jayman]

If this topic has already been discussed on the JREF Forum could someone please link to that discussion? For some reason, I can't search the forum. If these questions have already been discussed at length I don't want to waste space or time.


If not, I would like to ask some questions about the criticisms of psychology.


What is meant when psychology is referred to as a "soft" science? Does this mean that any studies, conclusions or data derived from psychology are invalid?


My friend said to me that neuroscience is surpassing psychology. He implied that neuroscience would render psychology obsolete or irrelevant, if it hasn't already. Has anyone ever heard this claim or claims like it? Any thoughts on this?


Recently in this article in the comments section people took a swipe at this woman for getting a degree in psychology. Saying that she would regret it one day when she's applying for a job at a grocery store.

When I told some friends in our atheist meetup group that I was going to be majoring in psychology this Fall, I felt a similar distaste. It felt like they were saying, "Psychology? pfft".


My main questions here would be:


1. What does it mean when people say, "Psychology? Meh, it's a 'soft' science"?


2. Why does it seem that so many people have a dismissive/"whatever" attitude when it comes to psychology? Why does it seem that people hate on psychology?


Again, if this has already been discussed could someone link to those discussions?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here are some:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69502

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18618

Psychology has a long history of pseudo-science, and it shows. I had a psych exam a few years back and was given the inkblot test, despite studies showing that such tests are nonsense and all confirmation bias.

Also a big problem is improper reliance on case studies and correlative studies. I recommend How To Think Straight About Psychology for a skeptical look at the field.

 

[fuelair]

Any science that has to rely on studies of individuals and/or very general masses where conditions (variables) cannot really be controlled is a soft science. Thus sociology, psychology/psychiatry, economics, anthropology, archaeology etc. are soft sciences. Very generalized predictions can be made to some extent in those fields but not to the extent they can in physics, chemistry, biology (though it is closer to a soft science in some areas it covers).

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think one thing that makes psychology "softer" then other sciences is the lack of a control. Ethical concerns prevent you from collecting examples of human behavior too far on the edges of the bell curve, so to speak.

 

[Complexity]

Hey, Josh,

If psychology interests you, by all means study it. Bring a skeptical mindset to the subject (a diverse collection of subjects, really), read from a variety of sources, and be prepared to challenge your teachers and classmates when necessary, for you will probably encounter a lot of sloppy thinking. What you will get to study, however, is aspects of the human mind, and all of the myriad human behaviors - some of the coolest stuff imaginable.

The human mind, of course, is the operation of a brain within a body within the context of a world.

Why do so many people say that psychology is a soft science? Because so many practitioners of psychology try to assume the mantle of the scientific method without actually practicing it. Many people hypothesize and call it theorizing without sharpness in language or concepts, without critical thought, without producing testable hypotheses, without testing hypotheses. Psychoanalysis is a classic example of this, but there are many, many more in psychology. Also, as in economics and many other soft sciences, people tend to use the language and machinery of a hard science (e.g. mathematics, especially statistics) in ways that isn't warrented by the quality of the material that is being applied to. In other words, they often use the trappings of science without having the necessary attitudes of, respect for, or standards of scientific inquiry.

That said, there is a great deal of quality work being done in psychology and I hope you seek it out, prefer it, and advance the field in similar ways.

 

[AlBell]

A lost soul returns!

 

[Complexity]

A lost soul returns!

It is necessary to take a break (for a year or so) every so often to remain somewhat sane.

I'm recharged and more ______ than ever.

 

[jayman]

Hey, Josh,

If psychology interests you, by all means study it. Bring a skeptical mindset to the subject (a diverse collection of subjects, really), read from a variety of sources, and be prepared to challenge your teachers and classmates when necessary, for you will probably encounter a lot of sloppy thinking. What you will get to study, however, is aspects of the human mind, and all of the myriad human behaviors - some of the coolest stuff imaginable.

The human mind, of course, is the operation of a brain within a body within the context of a world.

Why do so many people say that psychology is a soft science? Because so many practitioners of psychology try to assume the mantle of the scientific method without actually practicing it. Many people hypothesize and call it theorizing without sharpness in language or concepts, without critical thought, without producing testable hypotheses, without testing hypotheses. Psychoanalysis is a classic example of this, but there are many, many more in psychology. Also, as in economics and many other soft sciences, people tend to use the language and machinery of a hard science (e.g. mathematics, especially statistics) in ways that isn't warrented by the quality of the material that is being applied to. In other words, they often use the trappings of science without having the necessary attitudes of, respect for, or standards of scientific inquiry.

That said, there is a great deal of quality work being done in psychology and I hope you seek it out, prefer it, and advance the field in similar ways.

Thanks! I really appreciate this.

 

[jayman]

Confirmation Bias

Here are some:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69502

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18618

Psychology has a long history of pseudo-science, and it shows. I had a psych exam a few years back and was given the inkblot test, despite studies showing that such tests are nonsense and all confirmation bias.

Also a big problem is improper reliance on case studies and correlative studies. I recommend How To Think Straight About Psychology for a skeptical look at the field.

Confirmation bias was discovered or found out about through psychological experiments, right? If not, how was something like that established to exist or to occur?

 

[Complexity]

Thanks! I really appreciate this.

Most welcome. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you want to study psychology, which topics interest you, how far you might take your studies, and what you might like to do after graduation.

 

[jayman]

Most welcome. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you want to study psychology, which topics interest you, how far you might take your studies, and what you might like to do after graduation.

I'm most interested in why people believe things to be true in the absence of hard/credible evidence. Cognitive psychology has really caught my eye. I'm interested in studying how people perceive, remember, think, speak, and solve problems.

Not understanding or knowing how the mind works, or how psychology has informed us about the flaws of human perception and thinking, has gotten me into trouble.

I would definitely like to take my studies to the PhD level of cognitive psychology. I would like to be a researcher in this field and/or a professor of psychology.

To be an expert in the field of cognitive psychology would be wonderful to me. I would love to be in a position to educate and inform people about the how mind works or, more importantly, how it doesn't work.

People are wrongfully put behind bars because eyewitness testimony is held up as a gold-standard of evidence in the legal system. I would like to change that. Or at least try to convince people that this should change immediately.

I would like to be able to educate/inform the public about all the flaws of human memory, perception, and thinking. Because hucksters use that to their advantage.

 

[Kaylee]

I'm most interested in why people believe things to be true in the absence of hard/credible evidence. Cognitive psychology has really caught my eye. I'm interested in studying how people perceive, remember, think, speak, and solve problems.

Not understanding or knowing how the mind works, or how psychology has informed us about the flaws of human perception and thinking, has gotten me into trouble.

I would definitely like to take my studies to the PhD level of cognitive psychology. I would like to be a researcher in this field and/or a professor of psychology.

To be an expert in the field of cognitive psychology would be wonderful to me. I would love to be in a position to educate and inform people about the how mind works or, more importantly, how it doesn't work.

People are wrongfully put behind bars because eyewitness testimony is held up as a gold-standard of evidence in the legal system. I would like to change that. Or at least try to convince people that this should change immediately.

I would like to be able to educate/inform the public about all the flaws of human memory, perception, and thinking. Because hucksters use that to their advantage.

Josh, I think its brave and generous of you to share your experience with a psychic.

Good luck with your goals! I know nothing about the field other than what I've read in mass media and a few books written for the layman -- but I think it sounds very interesting.

In regard to what your friend said about neurobiology -- would it make sense for you to get a minor in it, or a double major? Have you spoken to some professors in both psychology and neurobiology, and also to some people who work in those fields? Some people are willing to give short 10 minute "informational" interviews to answer questions.

 

[Complexity]

Josh - Wonderful stuff. Go for it.

When you get challenges from people about your chosen field being 'soft' and not 'where the real action is at', let them know that you are pursuing something that interests you, that you have a passion for, and that you will make the field, and the world, better that you found it.

 

[John Jackson]

1. What does it mean when people say, "Psychology? Meh, it's a 'soft' science"?

It's usually a clear sign that you're talking to someone who has no idea of what they're talking about!

Seriously, most people confuse psychology with psychiatry, self-help gurus they see on TV, psychoanalysts they've seen in films, etc., so what they're arguing against is their false understanding of psychology rather than psychology itself.

Most, not all, of psychology these days follows the scientific method of theory building through empirical research and constant re-evaluation - i.e. the scientific 'cycle of inquiry'.

If you're into the cognitive side of psychology then you'll find that it certainly is scientific. Some paradigms in social psychology are more interpretive and qualitative - but worthwhile nonetheless.

As for hard/soft science. A good way to think about it is in terms of uncertainty. In something like chemistry you can have a very high degree of confidence in your empirical results because chemicals behave exactly the same way each time you test them as long as the conditions are the same whereas humans are not quite so obliging!

So hard sciences are those that can produce precise and accurate results; soft sciences produce results with much larger error bars (if indeed you even use statistics).

But don't confuse 'soft' with 'easy'. Psychology, because of its 'softness' requires a lot of critical thinking and engagement with theory. In fact, it's an ideal subject for the skeptic (if you define skeptic as 'inquirer' rather than 'non-believer') because of this.

And if you're asking questions like "why do people believe weird things?" then psychology really is the best tool.

Good luck with it.

 

[Hypnotictortoise]

I guess you could similarly ask the question "is statistics soft mathematics?"

It would probably be valid to say that psychology is becoming more scientific now that we can see what is happening inside the brain in response to certain stimuli, conditions, etc.

 

[John Jackson]

It would probably be valid to say that psychology is becoming more scientific now that we can see what is happening inside the brain in response to certain stimuli, conditions, etc.

No, that's not correct at all.

 

[Wudang]

My first degree was in psychology before I went sideways into computing. I learned a lot more about the scientific method than many people doing hard sciences because psychology (in 1978-82 anyway) had a lot of clutter to get rid of. So I always had to go back to original papers, check conclusions, etc because there was a lot of entrenched pre-scientific metatheory based people around.
And to say that neuroscience will replace psychology is a bit like saying quantum mechanics will replace chemistry. Chemistry certainly relies on QM a lot these days and some interesting things are being found (or so I read) but there's more to it than that. As an example see some of Ben Goldacre's articles on the placebo effect.
And on a personal level studying psychology gave me an education, not just a degree, though to be fair there were many in my class just there to get the degree as a precursor to a career in PR or whatever.
And yes it drives me nuts how much Freud has sunk into the popular mind with his model of the mind as a steam engine.

 

[Hypnotictortoise]

No, that's not correct at all.

Why?

 

[John Jackson]

Why?

.

Most, not all, of psychology these days follows the scientific method of theory building through empirical research and constant re-evaluation - i.e. the scientific 'cycle of inquiry'.

That's why.

 

[Dancing David]

Why?

Because science is a method, one can apply the methods of science without the actual details of biochemistry and neuroanatomy.

The main problem with 'psychology' is teh same as any field. unreplicated work and people who aren't in the field that make claims and hide behind the terminology.

Psychology is a science but most of what is out there in the media is not, it is by science, press release and a lot of nonsense.