Is psychology really a science?

[Morkeliph]

Our modern society generally accepts the field of psychology as the science of the human mind, or the study of psyche, which is mind. The trouble I see with this is that what exactly is the human mind, and where is it in the human body? There is currently no evidence that a human mind really exists, we just accept that it does. Some people argue that the mind exists in an alternate, mental world, apart from the physical, but where is the proof for that!? Really, when you think about it, this basic premise of psychology is no more superstitious that astrology, or demonology in its explanations for human behavior. Science, that is natural science, is founded upon the principles of tangible, concrete, observable data that shows casual relationships and is replicatable. Psychology really doesn't offer much of that at all, citing causes of "mental disorders" as "poor self concept," "disturbed cognitive processes," or "hostile personality types." These so-called causes do nothing to really say what is observably going on, and by no means illustrate causal relationships.

What I believe then is necessary is behavior science, which is the study of human behavior by strictly observable and measurable means. Behavior science studies the effects of behavior-environment interactions and conducts experiments that reliably measure how environmental antecedents and consequences affect behavior. A study such as this is by far more practical and concrete than the so-called science of psychology because it provides useful solutions to behavioral problems. Psychology's mentalist explanations for behavior all refer to internal and inaccessable features, such as self-concept. How does one go about changing self-concept, or go about fixing "dysfunctional cognitive processes?" The difference with behavior science is that when behavior is accounted for by environmental influences, something can be done about it by changing the individual's environment.

So for all you charlatans and self-professed intellectuals, explain to me how psychology is at all a functional science, and prove to us the value and validity of mentalism and the study of psyche.

[GenocideAlive]

Behavioral Science is an aspect of psychology; it's just not the entirety of it. Much like all of the other social sciences, there's a lot of gray area. Sort of like human development: we all develop, but at what pace and how? If you choose not to recognize other schools of thought, there is nothing that will satisfy your question.

[Morkeliph]

This is where I'm afraid that we disagree entirely. Behavior science is not psychology. Psychology, as was previously defined, is the study of the human mind. Behavior science is the study of human behavior. The difference is that the mind is not tangible or even proven to exist. It is a concept that has been unquestioningly accepted for millennia, but never has anyone been able to scientifically prove the existence of the human mind. That is why making inferences to explain behavior that refer to the human mind, and internal mental processes is worthless. Behavior, however, does exist and is directly observable and measurable. We can say that this behavior is followed by these environmental consequences and because the behavior increases in rate, the consequences reinforce the behavior. We do not have to make a reference to some mystical agent such as the mind to explain why behaviors occur. In reality, behavior science is a subset of biology, and not a part of psychology at all. I believe that behavior science can account for all human behavior and that we should do away with the mentalist speculating.

[Kaervek]

Behavior science is not psychology.
To be quite honest, "Behavior Science" sounds exactly like psychology with the only apparent difference being the response to the study.

Psychology, as was previously defined, is the study of the human mind. Behavior science is the study of human behavior. The difference is that the mind is not tangible or even proven to exist. It is a concept that has been unquestioningly accepted for millennia, but never has anyone been able to scientifically prove the existence of the human mind.
Would you think that it's safe to say that the mind (or at least what would be the mind's function) could be defined as the brain's immediate reaction to it's surroundings? Not so much a physical portion of our body, but rather a necessary and voluntary [i]reflex?

Sure, we can argue all day about what the mind might or might not be, but in the end, isn't it mere symantecs? What are the negative factors that psychology introduce, and how are they remedied by or surpassed in effectiveness by "behavioral science?"

[Prozerran]

I think the closest measureable scientific data developed in the area of psychology comes from psychiatry, where scientists measure the effects of certain chemicals on the human body. While the two are separate, they fall under the same realm of science.

Also, while psychology relies on "the mind", its purpose isn't to predict or otherwise quantify human characteristics. More or less psychology attempts to analyze why those characteristics are what they are through statistical or otherwise quantitative measurements of the environment in which a person is interracting with. So, while there is no quantitative measurement for "the mind", there are effects that are explained by outside quantitative methods. Therefore, there is a scientific basis behind psychology.

[Mtank]

Psychology is very much a science, but whether it is a natural science or a social science is still being debated. Its probably both.

The term "science" relies not on what is being studied but rather how it is being studied. Thus, science would relate to a systematic way of organising and collecting data, and then its analysis and interpretation.

This is what psychology students learn when they're starting off. There has been a lot of debate on this issue, and earlier psychology was not considered a science, but now, i think it is generally accepted that it is, and probably for good reason.

edit: The study of overt behaviour (behaviourism) is very much considered an aspect of psychology. Behaviourists do ignore anything that cannot be directly observed. They focus more on situations and the person's response to the situation.

It may seem like a hazy connection, but rather than connecting behaviourism to psychology, it is easier to connect psychology to behaviourism. Since overt behavious is a major aspect of study in the field of psychology, we can easily say the behaviourism does, indeed, come under its wing.

[GenocideAlive]

I believe that behavior science can account for all human behavior and that we should do away with the mentalist speculating.
If you choose not to recognize other schools of thought, there is nothing that will satisfy your question.

...

...

...

[Morkeliph]

Thank you all for your comments and participation. Let me attempt to answer a few of your questions and clarify some miscommunications or confusions in our discussion.
Would you think that it's safe to say that the mind (or at least what would be the mind's function) could be defined as the brain's immediate reaction to its surroundings? Not so much a physical portion of our body, but rather a necessary and voluntary [i]reflex?You, my friend, have struck very close to the mark, though you may not realize it. What you have mentioned, though I'm sure not intentionally, is in part behavior science's understanding of how behavior works, at least in the respondent paradigm. To say that the mind isn't an actual, governing agent or actual tangible thing, but the process of our body's nervous system responding to its environment in reflexive ways touches upon behavior science's model for respondent conditioning, more commonly known as the classical conditioning discovered by Ivan Pavlov with his dogs. However, to say that the mind isn't a separate agent or thing, but a process or reacting to our environment is dangerous because in our common language the mind is defined differently. Merriam-Webster defines the mind as: a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.As you can see, this implies some internal, supernatural governing agent that houses memory, cognition, emotion, thought, perception, and reasoning; and each of these mental activities are referred to as "things" that have an existence of their own within the mental world. Behavior science, however, is able to explain all of these phenomena without the reference to some unseen, supernatural agent named "mind," but explains them in terms of separate behaviors that are each governed by environmental events and contingencies. In a moment, I will touch further on why it is preferable to avoid mentalist inferences in explaining human behavior.Also, while psychology relies on "the mind", its purpose isn't to predict or otherwise quantify human characteristics. More or less psychology attempts to analyze why those characteristics are what they are through statistical or otherwise quantitative measurements of the environment in which a person is interacting with. So, while there is no quantitative measurement for "the mind", there are effects that are explained by outside quantitative methods. Therefore, there is a scientific basis behind psychology.While it may be true that psychology does employ scientific methods of co relational study, the major error in psychology is that it assumes the association is causation. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and if it were then life would be much, much simpler to understand. For example, large studies of families and children in the US show that children from families with just one child perform better on standardized tests than children from families with more than one child. From this data, a researcher might conclude, "for the intellectual benefit of their children, many couples should consider having just one child." The problem with this is that the researcher has not considered all the confounding factors. For instance, children born of highly-educated parents also perform better on standardized tests, irrespective of how many children are in the family. Additionally, highly-educated couples are more likely to have smaller families, and in particular, are more likely to have a single child. If you thought about it long enough, I'm sure you could come up with some other confounding variables, like socio-economic status and the like.

This is where psychology makes its primary mistake. Psychologists assume that because a particular behavior and the individual's reports of certain feelings prior to or at the time of the behavior are associated, that these feelings are the cause of the behavior. In reality, the feelings may be the byproducts of the behavior, or even another behavior entirely that should be studied, rather than the cause of the behavior. This too will be exemplified a little later in this post. edit: The study of overt behaviour (behaviourism) is very much considered an aspect of psychology. Behaviourists do ignore anything that cannot be directly observed. They focus more on situations and the person's response to the situation.

It may seem like a hazy connection, but rather than connecting behaviourism to psychology, it is easier to connect psychology to behaviourism. Since overt behavious is a major aspect of study in the field of psychology, we can easily say the behaviourism does, indeed, come under its wing.First of all, let’s make a distinction between behaviorism and behavior science. Behaviorism refers to the philosophy behind behavior science. There are actually different types of behaviorism, such as methodological and radical, but only one behavior science. Though there are subtle differences between methodological behaviorism and radical behaviorism, the common component is the rejection of mentalist (psychologism) explanations for behavior due to its superstitious, intangible and impractical conclusions. Behavior science, however, is the actual study of behavior from objective evidence from replicatable cause and effect experiments. I do not blame you for making this mistake in definition, for even Merriam-Webster makes this mistake, but what do you expect when a group of men get together to define something that they are only limitedly acquainted with.


Now, the reason why behavior science is not a subset of psychology is because it does not deal with the mind (psyche) which is the central and foundational component of psychology. It is like saying that chemistry is a subset of biology. Though it may be true that biology applies elements of chemistry to better understand the processes of life, they are not the same thing. Behavior science is closer related to biology than psychology in that it works together with physiology to understand how animals behave, and what effects the environment has on that behavior. This encompasses both overt behaviors, like brushing ones' teeth, and inert behaviors, like heart rate, blood pressure, and cellular responses.


However, I see reason in you last statement that psychology is more easily connected to behavior science than vies versa. May I suggest that this is the case not because behavior science is a subset of psychology, but that psychology has borrowed many of the discoveries made by behavior science in attempts to gain validity and tangibility in their mentalist explanations.[Sure, we can argue all day about what the mind might or might not be, but in the end, isn't it mere symantecs? What are the negative factors that psychology introduce, and how are they remedied by or surpassed in effectiveness by "behavioral science?"Thank you for asking such an important question. I imagine this will open up a great deal of discussion and controversy, which is nothing new in the battle between psychology and behavior science. First off, however, you accusation of a mere argument of semantics needs revisiting. Often, semantics are of a great deal of importance and even greater controversy. Look at the many battles and debates that have been had over the proper definition of "faith" among the various denominations of religion. One important component of spoken language is that words maintain universal meaning between individuals, or else miscommunication ensues. The only thing that makes spoken language, or even written language for that matter, useful and effective is that meanings can be conveyed from one individual to another. When words have different meanings to different people, then communication can be corrupted as unintended meanings are portrayed. Acknowledging this, it is imperative that the word "mind" be well defined, not only for this discussion, but also for society and science in general. The general interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong, of mind is the internal governing agent within an individual that houses and facilitates both the conscious and subconscious processes of thought, reasoning, perception, imagination, emotion, memory and all other mental events.


Now on to the detriments of mentalism (psychologism) to the study of human behavior.

Mentalist explanations distract from actual causes of human behavior and prevent individuals from looking further.
Consider the following example: Bob, a 6 year old male, severely cuts and bruises himself while watching television with his family. Mentalists may analyze Bob, conducting analyses via personality tests, test measuring mood or attitude, interpretations of ink blots, or any other number of methods that gain supposed access to the subconscious. Then, from these results, a mentalist may argue that Bob cuts himself because he is emotionally disturbed. Maybe he has had a traumatic experience in his earlier childhood or during birth. When asked what the cause of his cutting behavior, the response is his emotional disturbance. When asked how we know Bob is mentally disturbed, the reply is "because he cuts himself." In reality, these explanations do not really tell us anything about why Bob behaves the way he does. However, a behavior analyst might observe that Bob severely cuts himself only when he is with his family, and especially while watching T.V. Then the analyst might observe what events both precede and follow the cutting behavior; after Bob hurts himself he generally gets attention from his family, whether reprimanding or nurturing. Then the behavior analyst instructs the family to ignore Bob when he cuts himself, and give him more attention when he is doing other, desirable things through the day. Over the first few days, the analyst observes that the cutting behavior escalates at first, but then gradually diminishes to much lower levels. Then, to be certain, the analyst tells the family to return to their previous behavior towards the child; cutting returns to its pretreatment rate. This sort of analysis shows causation, without referring to some vague, internal disposition, and also presents a practical solution. This is the advantage of behavior science. The best thing about this latter example is that is a real study (Carr and McDowell, 1980)

Mentalist explanations are not practical; they do not present an accessible and plausible solution.
If the earlier example wasn't enough, consider the case of autism. This is a great example because several studies have been done comparing the effects of various psychological treatments to behavioral therapies and behavioral methods always produce the best results. Anyway, as was previously mentioned, mentalist explanations are often cyclical; Johnny exhibits parrot-speech and repetitive behavior because he has autism. How do you know he has autism? Because he talks imitates speech and engages in repetitive behavior. Furthermore, mentalist "causations" are really nothing more than fancy labels. Bob cuts himself because he's "emotionally disturbed." Even when a child with autism is said to possess "dysfunctional cognitive processes," the therapist does not have access to the child's cognition, and thus can not fix them by making them functional. The behavior therapist recognizes that autism is a collection of various stereotyped behaviors and can treat each of these individually. By changing the environmental antecedents and consequences for each of these behaviors, the behavior therapist can effectively extinguish "autistic" behaviors and teach "functional" behaviors.

Supposed causes for behaviors proposed by mentalism may not be causes at all, but merely associated or byproduct behaviors.
Consider now the mentalist model for anorexia nervosa. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) explains anorexia as a neurotic disorder, some of the symptoms being: disturbed cognitions, fear of being fat, obsessive food rituals, distorted body image, and disturbed self-perception.

Perhaps why this is convincing to the general populace is because unusual thoughts often accompany bizarre behavior. However, many studies have shown that these ‘symptoms’ are not the causes of anorexic behavior, but the by products (Epling & Pierce, 1992; Keys, Brozek, Henschel, Mickelson, & Taylor, 1950). In 1950, several healthy, male volunteers participated in a forced starvation study performed by Keys and his associates. As their research progressed, and as the men lost progressively more weight, symptoms similar to those found in anorexia nervosa developed. On some tests, the men became neurotic even into the psychotic range, developing varieties of food obsession. Most significantly, these symptoms followed rather than preceded the starvation, making evident that they were not the causes of anorexia. This supports the behaviorist perspective that thoughts and emotions are not intangible, internal causes of behavior, but that behavior is shaped by its environment through conditioning. The behavioral model for anorexia, activity anorexia, is based on objectively observable and reproducible experimental data showing causation (Pierce, Epling and Boer, 1986).








References:

Carr, E. G. & McDowell, J. J. (1980). Social control of self-injurious behavior of organic etiology. Behavior Therapy, 11, 402-409.

Epling, W. F. & Pierce, W. D. (1992). Solving the anorexia puzzle: A scientific approach. Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber.

Keys, A., Brozek, J., Henschel, A., Mickelson, O. & Taylor, H. L. (1950). The biology of human starvation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Pierce, W. D., Epling, W. F., & Boer, D. P. (1986). Deprivation and satiation: The interrelations between food and wheel running. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 199-210.

[killer-penguin]

Heh looking at this from the perspective of one majoring in communications and culture (where behavioral science and psychology meet and are thrown out the theoretical window) is fun. Mainly because I can see both sides of the coin (although I'd argue that communications and culture is a behavioral science first and foremost and that you only delve into psychology rarely and with great care.

The "mind" is all based on perspective. Obviously there are going to be many who do not believe in it and therefore would feel psychology is not a science.

If you choose not to recognize other schools of thought, there is nothing that will satisfy your question.

I have to agree here, you don't neccesarily believe that there is indeed a 'mind' or and you certainly don't have to agree with that school of thought. But you do have to recognize it. This shouldn't be an arguement of whether or not there IS indeed a mind, but "IF" there is a mind, does that make psychology a science. (Because if the mind is nonexistent that does not only make psychology not a science but it also makes it a huge fallacy.)

I'm not going to quote anyone here, mainly because I can't promise that I know half as much about behavioral science as you obviously do mork (or that I have the time.) But what I will ask is that, are you looking at this from the perspective of one who is at least willing to allow for the possibility of the 'mind' or the 'psyche.' In this way you could argue that its not truly a science, (although you can't argue that similar practices are used in psychology and other sciences.) Think of it as a calculus problem:

ASSUMING that there is indeed a 'psyche' or some form of alternate, (the best term i can come up with is "non-biological") response to outside stimuli. Is psychology indeed a science.

Because (and I'm repeating myself) if you argue that the mind is not in a sense "real" or existent then that defaults psychology both out of the category of 'science' and basically it defaults psychology as a gigantic waste of time.

edit: That being said, you make some compelling arguements. Want to proofread my comms essay on the use of 'front stage and back stage' in the confines of a forum based environment? :D

[GenocideAlive]

I'm not sure how posting studies where behavioralism succeeds and what you refer to as "mentalism" proves any greater point. You omit cases in which behavioralism fails and "mentalism" succeeds. It's sort of like an infomercial.

Not only that, but you're also relying heavily on the behavior of patients to point to their problem when not all human behavior is overt. How do you reliably distinguish or correlate learned habit from deviance? You cannot.

What if I'm a serial killer that eats my victims. Did I learn this behavior from watching violent, graphic T.V.? Or did I get sexually and physically abused? Or am I repeating behavior that I learned in a war that I was drafted? In either case, you ultimately can't determine anything about the patient's current problem because his behavior doesn't include deviate determinate causes.

[Morkeliph]

Once again, thank you for you well-thought comments in our discussion.

Responding to killer-penguin and GenocideAlive, the issue is not the recognition of another perspective. Of course I recognize the existence of psychology's perspective, but I question its validity. It is much in the same way that you may recognize that astrology or demonology exists, but perhaps you do not "buy into" its arguments. On that note, psychology really isn't really much less superstitious than astrology or demonology; all of these account for the causes of human behavior by referring to some supernatural event or agent. Oddly enough, I'd even say that the foundational theory for astrology is more measurable than that of psychology because one can measure the positions and alignments of stars whereas the features and dimensions of the so-called mind cannot be measured. But I digress, the point is that just because a perspective exists does not mean that it should be paid attention to or that it is a valid perspective at all.

I'm not sure how posting studies where behavioralism succeeds and what you refer to as "mentalism" proves any greater point. You omit cases in which behavioralism fails and "mentalism" succeeds. It's sort of like an infomercial. The studies presented are meant to provide extra evidence for the reader to evaluate. This sort of technique is used not only in advertising, but also in academia and research journals, and is something you may want to acquaint yourself with. In response to similar criticism, John H. Kagel, Raymond C. Battalio, and Leonard Green stated:Our results put the burden of proof on those who support a particular position for which our data are incompatible. It is they who must show how our results are not applicable, or are irrelevant, to the human condition. Likewise, it is psychology and its supporters, not I, who have to prove the invalidity of behavioral methods of research and its applications to education, parenting, economics, pharmacy, government and all processes of learning and behavior management. Not only that, but you're also relying heavily on the behavior of patients to point to their problem when not all human behavior is overt.The behavior of the patients in the focus of their "problem" and the very reason they are in therapy. You make an excellent point in that not all behavior is overt, and behavior science acknowledges this. Here is the difference in methodological behaviorism and radical behaviorism. Methodological behaviorists do not believe in the importance of covert behaviors, like thinking, and choose to ignore it as irrelevant. They believe that because only overt behaviors are directly observable, that only they should be attended to and that all behavior can be explained and managed without reference to even covert, internal behavior. Radical behaviorists believe in covert behavior's importance, but still do not feel that it is of terrible significant importance. None the less, thanks to radical behaviorists like B. F. Skinner, much of covert behavior can be explained in terms of environment-behavior relationships. It is not necessary to insist that the mind is responsible for thinking and perception, but we can explain these phenomena as behaviors that are affected by histories of reinforcement and prevailing contingencies or reinforcement. B. F. Skinner explained:Covert behavior is almost always acquired in overt form, and no one has ever shown that the covert form achieves anything which is out of the reach of the overt. Covert behavior is also easily observed, and by no means unimportant, and it was a mistake for methodological behaviorism and certain versions of logical positivism and structuralism to neglect it simply because it was not "objective." It would also be a mistake not to recognize its limitations...[Covert behavior] does not explain overt behavior; it is simply more behavior to be explained.How do you reliably distinguish or correlate learned habit from deviance?I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, could you rephrase the question and perhaps give an example.What if I'm a serial killer that eats my victims. Did I learn this behavior from watching violent, graphic T.V.? Or did I get sexually and physically abused? Or am I repeating behavior that I learned in a war that I was drafted? In either case, you ultimately can't determine anything about the patient's current problem because his behavior doesn't include deviate determinate causes.The beauty of behavior science is that one does not even have to know what explicitly caused a condition in order to treat it; one only has to determine what environmental influences maintain the behavior and then change the subjects environment (A lengthy and detailed explanation of these principles can be given at another time, I do have a life to attend to, but for those curious much can be learned through personal research. Try google-ing "Operant Conditioning," "Respondent conditioning," "Positive (and) Negative Reinforcement" and "(Positive (and) Negative Punishment"). Thus, the cannibal serial killer may have acquired his behavior from various causes, but what is ultimately important is what is maintaining it now, and how can it be changed? These sorts of solutions behavior science presents. Contrastingly, Freudian psychology and other schools of psychology focus on the subject's past experiences and how this may have affected his "subconscious mind," or "disturbed his cognition," or created a "psychotic and hostile personality;" all of which are outside of the influence of the therapist and present no practical solution.edit: That being said, you make some compelling arguements. Want to proofread my comms essay on the use of 'front stage and back stage' in the confines of a forum based environment? :DThat might be interesting, email it to me at staylorb@cc.usu.edu under the subject of "Internet Paper." I'll try to get it back to you quickly.

[killer-penguin]

It is much in the same way that you may recognize that astrology or demonology exists, but perhaps you do not "buy into" its arguments. On that note, psychology really isn't really much less superstitious than astrology or demonology; all of these account for the causes of human behavior by referring to some supernatural event or agent.

THAT I'll agree to. You need a certain ammount of belief to buy into any of the aforementioned fields. Without belief in the "mind" psychology is indeed just a bunch of BS.

But that being said, you could use the same arguements (although farfetched) about any science. For example. Suppose you were studying biology, and someone made the arguement that biology (for this example we'll call biology the study of all living things and leave it at that.) can only actually be a science if we ACTUALLY exist.

See its the same thing, we have to believe that we actually or else we begin to ask a billion other questions and we spontaneously combust. (exaggeration ftw!) But you get the point.

I'm also going to jump off this tangent now because it really lends nothing to the discussion. I'll respond to the rest when I have time. Unfortunately I have a chem midterm and no computer at home >.<.

I'd say my first foray into the intellectual roundtable has been pretty interesting. Nice meeting you guys :D.

[Morkeliph]

But that being said, you could use the same arguements (although farfetched) about any science. For example. Suppose you were studying biology, and someone made the arguement that biology (for this example we'll call biology the study of all living things and leave it at that.) can only actually be a science if we ACTUALLY exist.

Though I understand your point, there is a line that needs to be drawn if we are to make any sort of progress in our understanding of nature and our relationship to it. After all, the aim of science really is that: to understand the principles, and laws governing nature and understand our relationship in those laws. The benefit, of course, of this sort of understanding is that we can then apply those laws in order to produce desired consequences.

In my personal view, and perhaps this is only mine, there is a distinction that needs to be made (and I believe this was the original distinction intended for scienctific method) between what we can tangibly observe and measure, and what we can not. Therefore, biology deals with the tangible and concrete; it measures physical processes within organisms or in the environment that make life possible. Saying that we may not even be alive or exist is of course silly because it provides nothing beneficial and all the evidence is in the opposite. Psychology attempts to deal with the tangible and measurable, human behavior, but does so by referring to an intangible and unmeasurable agent, the mind. Perhaps psychology should first undertake proving the existence of the mind before it assumes its influence over human behavior. Commonly, the mind is believed to exist because of the brain, or even within the brain, or even more radically, is created by the brain. However, there is no measurable and concrete evidence for this theory; what we do know is that the brain is a center for neural activity and that both overt and covert behaviors are made possible by electrical signals between neurons. This does nothing to prove that the mind exists, but merely helps us understand how complex behaviors are carried out; in reality, even these electrical signals between neurons can be viewed as behavior much in the same way that heart rate and glandular activity is behavior. That being so, it may even be possible to condition these signals with environmental events. This, of course, is what we actually do when we condition somebody to do anything because all behavior, as far as we can tell, involves neural communication. In all, psychology would be much improved if it abandoned its philosophy of the mind (mentalism) and focused on the tangible and evident, which is precisely what behavior science does.

[GenocideAlive]

The beauty of behavior science is that one does not even have to know what explicitly caused a condition in order to treat it; one only has to determine what environmental influences maintain the behavior and then change the subjects environment
Ah, but therein lay the flaw. If you cannot change the stimulus (or environment) that triggers the response (remembering the war), behaviorism has no other method of dealing with the subjects behavior short of hitting him with a taser (your "negative reinforcement")--which may only make things worse. Otherwise, you can try to distract him from thinking about it, or have him think about something else, but you will never get rid of those memories with overt action. The subject's only hope would lay in attempting to reconcile his negative experiences with someone whom was able to get at the root.
(A lengthy and detailed explanation of these principles can be given at another time, I do have a life to attend to, but for those curious much can be learned through personal research. Try google-ing "Operant Conditioning," "Respondent conditioning," "Positive (and) Negative Reinforcement" and "(Positive (and) Negative Punishment"). Thus, the cannibal serial killer may have acquired his behavior from various causes, but what is ultimately important is what is maintaining it now, and howcan it be changed?
I'm familiar with all of these terms, as well as B. F. Skinner. I wouldn't have called him a "radical behavioralist" O_O, but rather "the father of behaviorism". The more specific terms of behaviorism are novel to me; I was unaware that the school had schisms.

[Morkeliph]

Ah, but therein lay the flaw. If you cannot change the stimulus (or environment) that triggers the response (remembering the war), behaviorism has no other method of dealing with the subjects behavior short of hitting him with a taser (your "negative reinforcement")--which may only make things worse.I don't see how this is a flaw. Perhaps the assumption that remembering the war is the cause for the subjects behavior is a mistake. Note that remembering is a behavior in itself, and if remembering the war serves as a disciminative stimulus for "psychotic" behavior, then what we are looking at is a heterogeneous chain. In that case, the components of the chain can be extinguished by removing the primary reinforcement (note that reinforcement comes from consequences, not antecedents) for the entire chain. In this example, what ever reinforcing consequence occurs at the end of the chain (likely whatever the subject "gets out of" psychotic behavior) should be removed in possible. If this is not possible, for whatever reason, then the series of behaviors that lead to "psychotic" behavior may be extinguished. For example, remembering the war sets the occasion for "psychotic" behavior. If the antecedents that set the occasion for remembering the war can be associated with some other desired behavior, then you will have disrupted the chain and "psychotic" behavior will not be the result. Or, of you can associate some other behavior with remebering the war that results in greater reinforcing consequences than psychotic behavior, this behavior will eventually substitute for "psychotic" behavior. There are really many things that can be effectively done to change any subjects behavior, but before one can draw a conclusion as to which will be the most effective, the entire situation should be analyzed for its parts. (Note that the label "psychotic" does nothing to actually say what the behavior is but merely puts a ambiguous value on the behavior. What exactly is the subject doing?)

Secondly, negative reinforcement is not the term you were looking for in you counter-solution. Note that reinforcement occurs only when behaviors are made more likely. A negative reinforcer is any stimulus, or event, the removal of which increases the rate of an operant response. Your example of electric shock would be defined as positive punishment; as it presents a stimulus (electric shock) in hopes of decreasing the rate of the target response. In reality, shock isn't even considered a punisher unless it reliably reduces the behavior; otherwise it is considered arbitrary. As perhaps I will explain in a future post (time does not allow right now), methods of reinforcement are almost always preferrable to methods of punishment. The primary reason is that punishment does not teach new, acceptable behavior, it only decreases the rate of the target behavior. When this target behavior is reduced, some other behavior must take its place and punishment alone does not direct what this new behavior should be.Otherwise, you can try to distract him from thinking about it, or have him think about something else, but you will never get rid of those memories with overt action. The subject's only hope would lay in attempting to reconcile his negative experiences with someone whom was able to get at the rootWhat you are really doing here is what was explained above, teaching the subject to respond to discriminative stimuli in another way, which alternate way is reinforced. Unfortunately, psychology clouds this whole process in mentalist ambiguity (psychobabble) and the process is made less effective and less productive as a result. It is not that "his mind is scarred due to emotional trauma" but that prior conditioning and a history of reinforcement by the subjects environment has supported and maintained his behavior until it has reached its current condition. The only things that maintain the subjects behavior currently have to exist in the present because the past is a man-made convention and does not really exist.I'm familiar with all of these terms, as well as B. F. Skinner. I wouldn't have called him a "radical behavioralist" O_O, but rather "the father of behaviorism". The more specific terms of behaviorism are novel to me; I was unaware that the school had schisms.Actually, John B. Watson is the real father of behaviorism and is generally considered the first behaviorist. Watson's behaviorism is more like the methodological behaviorism that I have described; he believed that only the directly observable should be attended to or even accounted for. B. F. Skinner, to whom the most controversy and false accusations have been targeted, is the father of radical behaviorism. Skinner, as you may learn by reading his works (especially About Behaviorism), believed that covert behaviors were important, but he also acknowledged their limitations. Read where I quoted him before and this will illustrate my point. Today, behaviorism is most commonly associated with B. F. Skinner, perhaps because he was the most revolutionary in the discoveries of behavioral principles and was such a significant figure in it's progression.

Might I suggest a further investigation of behavioral principles as to attain a clearer understanding of how they operate before they are criticized. At a later time I can explain them myself in this thread, but I have work and school to attend to at the moment. For the meantime, I'm sure you can find ample information via google using the search terms previously listed. here they are again for your convenience:
Postive Reinforcement
Negative Reinforcement
Positive Punishment
Negative Punishment
Chain Schedules of Reinforcement.
Discriminative Stimulus
Operant Conditioning
Respondent Conditioning

Or try visiting these sites:
www.bfskinner.org (http://www.bfskinner.org)
www.behavior.org (http://www.behavior.org)
www.behavior-analyst-online.org (http://www.behavior-analyst-online.org)
www.wmich.edu/aba/ (http://www.wmich.edu/aba/)

For those with pets, yes, even young ball pythons, try this site:
www.wagntrain.com/OC/ (http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/)

[GenocideAlive]

Might I suggest a further investigation of behavioral principles as to attain a clearer understanding of how they operate before they are criticized.
I think by posting this in a general forum you're immediately acknowledging the limitations of your audience. If you want people to run out and educate themselves about behaviorism for your benefit, I think you've sort of got a screwed perspective as to what role people play in your life. As is, I think I've said my piece: when behavior is caused by memories, there is little that you can do to change that short of trying to:

* Determine the memory
* Find an acceptable alternate
* Condition the subject to wholly reject his previous reaction in favor of the new

I don't think it possible in some contexts. Seeing your wife and child die in an accident 3 ft. in front of you isn't going to be changed with a food stimulus or some scent. Sort of like changing the subject when someone brings up their suicidal thoughts over a death in the family probably isn't going to make them less suicidal. The problem isn't the behaviorally rooted, but rather someone's perception and interpretation of events they've witnessed. Behavioralism sees its primary flaw there.

[Morkeliph]

I think by posting this in a general forum you're immediately acknowledging the limitations of your audience. If you want people to run out and educate themselves about behaviorism for your benefit, I think you've sort of got a screwed perspective as to what role people play in your life.I realize that most people probably are not as big of advocates for behavior science as myself, which is all good and fine. However, I hardly think it is to my benefit for others to become educated on the matter; on the other hand, I think it is much to their benefit, and yours as well. I'm not sure what "role" you're hinting at, I don't really care what the hell you do with your life, but I did create this thread with the intention of initiating purposeful discussion on human behavior. I'm sorry if you do not feel up to the task of participating.As is, I think I've said my piece: when behavior is caused by memories, there is little that you can do to change that short of trying to:

* Determine the memory
* Find an acceptable alternate
* Condition the subject to wholly reject his previous reaction in favor of the new.Here again is your first mistake, as I believe I have effectively exemplified several times: behavior is not caused by "memory." Remembering is in itself a behavior. Remembering merely constitutes engaging in some of the sensory bevaviors that you engaged in at a previous time, except this time you're behaving on a covert level. Imagining something works much the same way: covert visual behavior. Anyway, to say that some behaviors are caused by remembering is merely to suggest a heterogeneous chain of behavior, and this can be altered by changing the contingencies that maintain the entire chain and/or its individual components. What stimulus and consequences set the occasion for and maintain remembering? Change those. What is the ultimate reinforcing outcome of the entire chain? Change that contingency. "Conditioning the subject to reject his previous reaction if favor of a new one" is merely changing the environmental contingencies that maintain his old behavior by introducing new contingencies that favor a new behavior. There is absolutely no need to refer to "memories causing behavior" or the "subconscious" for these things do not even exist.I don't think it possible in some contexts. Seeing your wife and child die in an accident 3 ft. in front of you isn't going to be changed with a food stimulus or some scent. Sort of like changing the subject when someone brings up their suicidal thoughts over a death in the family probably isn't going to make them less suicidal. The problem isn't the behaviorally rooted, but rather someone's perception and interpretation of events they've witnessed. Behavioralism sees its primary flaw there.You obviously do not understand behavioral therapy or else you would not make such an under-thought argument. Behavior therapy does not merely utilize food reinforcement as a means to changing behavior; behavior analysts recognize and implement many sources of conditioned and primary reinforcements that occur in our everyday life, not just food. Once again, "seeing your wife and child die in an accident 3 ft. in front of you" isn't what we are trying to change, and obviously no one can change the past. We can change his remembering behavior, however. Your example does not tell anything about the subjects problem, what is the subject doing? There in lies his problem. With the "evidence" you have provided, I do not see where you can successfully conclude that behaviorism is flawed. Please be more specific if you wish to make a point.

[GenocideAlive]

Here again is your first mistake, as I believe I have effectively exemplified several times: behavior is not caused by "memory." Remembering is in itself a behavior. Remembering merely constitutes engaging in some of the sensory bevaviors that you engaged in at a previous time, except this time you're behaving on a covert level. There is absolutely no need to refer to "memories causing behavior" or the "subconscious" for these things do not even exist.
Here again is your first mistake, that you don't perceive anybody's conflicting opinion as a valid opinion, but rather that your two-page opinion with behavioralist doublespeak peppered in will supercede theirs. Wake up; it's not fact, it's your opinion. There are two shit-tons of people with 10 times your education, experience, and understanding that think behaviorism is merely a facet of psychology and nothing more. I'm not going to get a degree in psychology just to shut you up--though it's becoming more clear why you'd post in a general forum instead of a specialized, psychology forum. You'd either get ignored or laughed out.
You obviously do not understand behavioral therapy or else you would not make such an under-thought argument. Behavior therapy does not merely utilize food reinforcement as a means to changing behavior;
Using that same logic, you obviously do not understand sarcasm or else you would not percieve that comment as anything serious. Sarcasm does not merely utilize jokes as a means of communication; things like oversimplification, confidence, and even seeming ignorance can be used as methods of sarcasm. Oftentimes sarcasm relies wholly on the speaker using subtle cues in their speech and not revealing overt attempts at sarcasm. I'm not really enjoying mimicking you, but since you feel the need to turn everything simple idea you have into a three paragraph lecture, I figured I'd at least reciprocate so you can get an idea of what it's like trying to slog through your drivel.

I'm getting pretty bored with your ignorance based on your education, so I think I'll just move on. I've met plenty of people whom operate under the vast misunderstanding that everyone who disagrees is just not tuning in to the right channel.

You might want to join a church, you'll find a lot of similar-minded people.

[Morkeliph]

It is truly unfortunate that you could not participate in a civil, intelligent discussion of the study of human behavior and how it should be conducted. Of course I speak my opinion as fact, that is precisely what it is. What good is an opinion unless it is true. I do not disregard your opinion as a validly held one, but I do not have to accept it as a validly applied one. Obviously it would be of no interest if we all accepted one opinion as the one to be applied and never questioned its validity.

As to you last comment, I think we're all aware of what sarcasm is, and what it is not is the topic of this discussion. If you choose not to participate, that is your option to do so, but if you choose to participate, please do so civily. As to the level of my education, I have never professed to be an expert on the matter, merely an advocate. I post in this forum because it is enjoyable and recreational, and those things of which I have posted are merely the same arguments presented by those who are masters of behavior science. In this sense, nothing that I have said is really originally my own but is the basic philosophy of behavior science.

Anyway, thank you at least for your amusing comments; hopefully you will change your mind and decide to participate amiably.

[Modred]

It appears I'm late to the party. Dumb road trips with no internet access. Alas, it is quite late in the evening for me to make coherent posts on the topic, so I shall point out a few small observations before going to bed, and do expect my defense of pyschology within the next couple of days.

Here again is your first mistake, that you don't perceive anybody's conflicting opinion as a valid opinion, but rather that your two-page opinion with behavioralist doublespeak peppered in will supercede theirs. Wake up; it's not fact, it's your opinion.
Fact does not equate truth by necessity. A fact may be proved as either false or true and may be debated. However, an opinion contains subjective analysis, words such as "I think," "I believe," "best," "worst," "most effective" (when unsupported by statistical data); you understand my point, I'm sure. Opinions are most often based on facts, and from what I've skimmed, there are many facts in this thread and I plan to address many of them.

Of course I speak my opinion as fact, that is precisely what it is.
Sorry, I just had to point out the paradox. Facts and opinions cannot be the same. See my comments on Genocide's "opinion rant."

And finally: what happened to the title question? Whether or not behavior analysis better explains humans than pyscho-analysis does not address if pyschology constitutes a science.

For more wonderful gems, and hopefully a rousing argument in favor of pyscho-analysis as a valid science, please tune in next time.

[Morkeliph]

I suppose I should clarify. Opinions are not necessarily facts, but to the holder of the opinion they must necessarily be or else he/she is lying to themself. I state my opinions as fact because for the most part (unless otherwise specified) I believe them to be just that. What is the use in holding an opinion you do not believe to be true.

None the less, I believe I present many actual facts to the argument in favor of behavior science and as a contrasting argument to psychology. Behavior science is presented because I believe it is the best solution to the psychology problem.

[Cyberspirit]

Sorry, I have the tendency to get confused by an argument involving so many professional terms.

Maybe this has been done already but,

Can someone please define the "scientific process" and "psychology" again ?

If psychology is a science, it should follow the scientific process.

- Data are interpreted in an objective way.
- Hypotheses are tested through the experimental method before they become theories.
- Each term has a standard definition.
- ...

In a sense, I think psychology involves both science and pseudoscience.

Psychologists rely more heavily on observation, experience and guesswork than experimentation in their research.

[Modred]

Psychologists rely more heavily on observation, experience and guesswork than experimentation in their research.
What is experimentation if not observation, experience, and guesswork?

Opinions are not necessarily facts, but to the holder of the opinion they must necessarily be or else he/she is lying to themself.
Just to beat a dead horse: a fact is an objective statement that may be proved true or false and an opinion is a subjective judgment about a topic. You should believe that your facts are true; however, if your facts are proven false your belief (subjective opinion) may not change since it is subjective. But your opinion does not change the rectitude or falsity of the fact on which it is based. And you can express facts without using your opinion. Anyway, on to my argument.

You defined pyschology as the study of the mind; however, you never truly focused on psychology's main goal: explaining human behavior, generally through studying the mind (henceforth referred to as psychoanalysis). To clarify, psychoanalysis attempts to explain human behavior via the mind, while behaviorism attempts to explain human behavior via measurable quantities, such as enviornmental stimuli. Behaviorism developed not long after the birth of psychoanalysis because its founders believed that psychoanalysis, typically exemplified by Freud and his contemporaries, was unscientific in practice. So far, we are in agreement, correct?

But is Freudian analysis unscientific solely because the mind cannot be quantified? Morkeliph has stated, "Mentalist explanations distract from actual causes of human behavior and prevent individuals from looking further," citing the study of Bob, a little boy who cuts himself because he is disturbed and is disturbed because he cuts himself, at least according to Morkeliph's representation of psychoanalytical observation. However, I contest that this mental disturbance results not from the cutting, but from repressed emotion most likely caused by a traumatic experience. Thus psychoanalysis and behaviorism will agree that environment and experience shape human behavior; the difference lies in that psychoanalysis attempts to remedy the malign behavior by removing the mental cause (which resulted from environment), while behaviorism attempts to treat the malign behavior by altering the present environment and generally ignoring the mind.

So, were I a psychoanalyst such as Freud, how would I explain Bob's self destructive behavior? First I will expound on the nature of repression and distortion so that when I use these terms we have a common reference to base our debate upon. According to Freud, human behavior is driven by impulse. People act because they want to act. However, what people desire to do may not be socially acceptable, so society creates an environment which discourages acting on these desires. For many people, the desire seemingly disappears; for example, most people lose the childish desires to take whatever they want, when they want thanks to the reinforcement of theft as an undesireable behavior. When not stealing requires conscious thought, the potential of social disaproval causes a person to sublimate, or transpose, the negaive desire into something positive; to take my previous example, rather than steal another person's food, that effort may be sublimated to earning one's own food. However, some people will be so well conditioned by the environment created by society that the unwanted desire will never cross their mind. At this point, the desire is repressed--no conscious effort is required to avoid acting on that desire, the person simply no longer appears to have that desire. But repression does not end the desire, and the desire will ultimately reappear. Because the original desire is no longer experienced by the person, when the desire resurfaces it will be distorted so that the repression does not block acting on the desire. The more complete the repression, the more distorted the latter desires will be in comparison to the original. Psychoanalysis attempts to see through these distortions and bring the original desire out of repression. Once control of the desire requires active thought, the distorted desires disappear and the patient should be able to live a normal life, without the malign behavior.

Now, on to Bob. A psychoanalyst argument would hold that at some point during his early childhood, Bob experienced an emotionally charged occurance or event. As a result of the social environment, some of these strong emotions were never properly expressed and released. Without being expressed, these emotions were repressed and Bob continued to live a seemingly normal life. However, the desire to express these emotions continues and begins to manifest itself in distorted manners, hence the cutting. Because the repressed urges cannot be expressed and Bob is likely not even aware of the repressed urges, the only way for these desires to be expressed is through distorted behavior.

So what can be done? Of course, from the information you have provided I cannot deduce any hints as to the nature of Bob's emotional trauma that caused the repression. But a psychoanalytical therapy would study the experiences of the experiences of Bob and encourage him to express whatever impulsively came to his mind to say. Eventually, this combination of wanton expression and research into past environment should allow a psychoanalyst to deduce with some measure of accuracy what caused the repression. From this point, the therapist works to help Bob express the repressed desires and bring them to a conscious level. Once the repressed urges are under the control of conscious decisions, the distorted behavior, in this case cutting, will disappear because it is no longer necessary.

And what part of this is scientific, you ask? First, a psychoanalytical study observes the surface impulses of the patient. Second, the therapist researches into the environment and experiences of the patient to look for possible causes of emotional disturbance. Third, the therapist uses these observations and research to progressively dismantle the barriers repressing a desire, allowing him or her to gather even more information and draw closer to resolving the patient's problem. So far we have observation, research, and experimentation. Sounds quite scientific to me.

To address psychology as a whole as a science, we must look at the changes in paradigm associated with the field as a whole. By paradigm, I mean a set of ideas and practices common to the vast majority of practitioners in the selected field. In the early twentieth century, psychoanalysis constituted the psychological paradigm. Not long after, during the mid-twentieth century, behaviorism largely replaced psychoanalysis, leading to the preponderance of physical treatments such as electro-shock therapy and medication. Towards the end of the twentieth century, a new form of pschology called cognitive science has emerged, meshing to some extent the physical aspects of behaviorism with a consideration for the mental. Each of these changes occurred over time as the majority of psychiatrists were converted from the previous paradigm to the new mode of thinking. Hence, as a whole, psychology has experienced at least two paradigm shifts and three paradigms during the last one hundred years. Given this progression by paradigm shift, I can draw no conclusion except that psychology is a science.

[Morkeliph]

Thank you Modred for the well thought, clearly explained argument on
psychoanalysis. It is clear that you have an understanding of psychology and
behavior science and know where the two meet and contrast. Here are a few
opinions of my own and I believe behavior science in general that I'm sure you
at least are familiar with, but are introduced for discussion sake and for
wider participation.


As to to science of psychology, I think we can all agree that psychology does
follow the scientific method in its approach to studying human behavior, so by
that definition we may call it a science. Let us move on to the general
philosophy of psychology: mentalism. Before we continue, how do we define
mentalism? Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of mentalistic:


1 : of or relating to any school of psychology or psychiatry that in contrast to
behaviorism values subjective data (as those gained by introspection) in the
study and explanation of behavior
2 : of or relating to mental phenomena


May we say that mentalism is the general philosophy of psychology that human behavior can and may be accounted for by referring to an internalized mental agent called "the mind."


Now, to clarify the point I mean to make, mentalism, the general philosophy of psychology, is superstious and unscientific and interferes with the construction of a concrete and practical explanation for human behavior. The existence of the phenomenon known as the mind is just as faith-based as the existence of diety. To say that a person behave the way they do because they are driven by impulse, or as the result of repressed emotion, or a subconscious desire is no more empirically based than to say that the devil made them do it.


Psychoanalysis relies heavily on self-report in order to discover the causes of a persons behavior. The problem with this is people are often unaware of why they do certain things, particularly those that are detrimental to themselves. This is especially the case of their behavior is the result of respondent conditioning (a.k.a. classical conditioning). Secondly, numerous studies have shown that memories can be falsely constructed. That is say, it is easy to unintentionally cause a subject to believe they have experienced something they haven't. Additionally, a subject who is "delving into his subconscious" may be reinforced to report in a particular way by the analyst observing him. This is sometimes referred to the observer-expectancy effect, but it is easily understood as positive reinforcement. The analyst writes more, or responds in certain reinforcing ways ("interesting" or "tell me about...") that direct how the subject reports. In all, self-report is not a very reliable way of detecting the cause of a behavioral problem. The observer-expectency effect can also be applied where the analyst interprets the arbitrary "free-associations" of the subject because the analyst is looking for themes that fit his preassumed causation for the behavior.


On the other hand, behavior science rejects mentalism as explanation for behavior and relies upon the philosophy of behaviorism. Behaviorism relies only upon the objective evidence of behavior-environment interaction as explanation for current behavior, instead of referring to the internal, unseen processes of "the mind." For this reason, behaviorism is concrete and practical; the therapist has access to behavior and the environment and can effectively alter them to examine their effects. Observer-expectency is minimized, if not completely eliminated, because a subject is either behaving in a certain way or not, and his environment either responds in a certain way or doesn't.


I bring this up so that the average individual will question the validity of explanations that are presented to them. I do not believe that we should accept psychological explanations for behavior that infer the influence of imaginary forces. Even "the mind," something we have taken granted as truth for so long that it has deeply influenced our very language, is something that should be questioned before we blindly accept it as valid and real.

[Morkeliph]

Thank you everyone for your participation in this thread. I posted this initially to help me write a paper for my English class. I would like to thank everyone who participated in helping me refine my paper and make decisions about which arguments I wanted to present. Thanks again!

Attached is a copy of my paper in word format. Enjoy!

(Moderators: You may now close this thread if you desire. If not, criticism and corrective feedback are still welcome on the paper.)

[GenocideAlive]

I'm going to read this, and if I don't see my name or my opinions sprinkled liberally, I'm going to contact your professor. At least cited as a source. Because I deserve it. Or you suck.

[Xenon]

Psychology is quackery plain and simple. If only for the fact that each person is different and will respond to the same stumuli differently than others. Whether nature or nurture is the cause of some neurological "disorders", psychologists cannot (in my opinion) treat either the cause or the symptoms effectively.

[Morkeliph]

How would you feel about a natural science approach to studying human behavior?

[Kingscrab]

Psychology is quackery plain and simple. If only for the fact that each person is different and will respond to the same stumuli differently than others. Whether nature or nurture is the cause of some neurological "disorders", psychologists cannot (in my opinion) treat either the cause or the symptoms effectively. If you take enough cases of similar responses can't you categorize various common patterns though? Isn't that what psychology is? Defining the different patterns and trying to predict their possible causes and effects? Sure you're not always going to be 100% accurate, but you can at least take a fairly well educated guess when trying to figure out a what makes a particular person tick.

[GenocideAlive]

If you take enough cases of similar responses can't you categorize various common patterns though? Isn't that what psychology is?
I pretty much agree wholeheartedly. It's not math, so you can't say Factor A + Factor B - Factor C / Factor D = Sure Result. To imply that any sort of absolutes exist in the realm of human behavior and psychology is fallacy. We are all products of our environment, but we can also choose not to be. You can argue that behavior is a product of environment, but it's almost trite to imply. How many kids swear they're not going to grow up like their parents? I'm not saying they all succeed, but again, to imply that none do or even a minority does...

[bekmeka]

kids who swear not to live like their parents are being affected by their environment, though, because if they had had different parents, they would have chosen a different way to live. sorry that's badly worded. i'm sure you understand what i mean. if a kid decides he's not going to drink because his dad does, his choice is still making a choice based on his environment. any choice someone makes is based on their environment or the way their brain is hardwired or a combination.

[Cyberspirit]

I think the reason psychology does not yet appear so scientific is that psychologists still do not have a simplified physical explanation of psychological phenomena, even when they know that there definitely is a physical explanation.

In other words, the various physical factors ( e.g. the firing from a particular nerve, the release of a particular chemical, a particular stimuli ) that contribute to consciousness exist, but we are too lazy to trace them all out.

Who will bother to record the status of every nerve in the brain ? It is much easier to use abstract terms like ,"the patient is experiencing a psychic vibration", even though the previous method is more accurate.

[Geckat]

@ bekmeka: Usually the former, I think. The thing that 'hardwires' your brain is really the way you're born, right? Your genetics and environmental factors during your early stages (like radiation, or your mom drinking while carrying you). However, scientists are thinking now that genetics don't have so much to do with the way you think as they once thought. I saw it in an article on cloning a while ago...I'll see if I can find it again if someone brings it up. Usually it's the environmental factors, and of course the experiences people go through, especially during childhood while their brain is still undergoing most of its development (usually halts between age 17 and 21, if I remember).

@ Cyberspirit: You're thinking psychiatry; I think psychology mostly has to do with the way peoples' mind works, not so much with nerves ajd stuff. Either way (I'm just being a stickler here, I guess), I don't see why they shouldn't be considered sciences. There's facts to them. Theories. Alterations of those theories. People studying them, and applications of facts and theories. Isn't that really what science is?

[ScottieIWU]

Seems to me like psychology and all forms of it being discussed tend to fit the scientific methodology expected. The fields observe, predict, test and allow the test results to be falsified.

I'd say psychology is a science.