Psychology a Soft Science?

[quote]grettiron wrote:
if you can’t write the fundamental laws as a differential equation then it’s pretty soft. are there even fundamental laws in psychology?[/quote]

People act.

On further thought, rather than attempt to argue the opposite – that psychology is a hard science – I would think it best to argue that rather than being only a soft science, psychology includes subdisciplines which are hard sciences, and give examples.

After of course having defined terms with support for the definitions.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But can you back up your assertion that that test establishes whether a supposed science is “hard” or “soft” according to definitions accepted by many other people?[/quote]

sure, but i’m going to limit my pool of other people to mathematicians, physicists, electrical, and mechanical engineers because that will support my claim :wink:

:slight_smile:

Hard Sciences are Cartesian Sciences. For Descartes, Mathematical observations are more certain than other observations. In a Cartesian Science like Physics, one can predict(provided all variables are known) outcomes of experiments.

Psychology lacks this level of apodictic accuracy, and as such is a soft science, like economics.

Ultimately, the distinction between hard and soft sciences becomes a matter of “closeness” to one’s epistemological ground.

[quote]orion wrote:
A lot of what is called “psychology” is actually meta-psychology like object-relation theory.

That is rather “soft” but useful.

There is “hard” psychology too, like behaviorism, but even that deals with the fact that the human mind is very complex and therefore not something you can predict with absolute certainty.

It is probably a science based art like medicine.

[/quote]

The object-relation theory comes from psychoanalysis actually.

I think it all depends on how you personally define hard and soft. Personally I would state that hard sciences are rooted in proven formulas and postulates, and soft sciences are more the analysis of data which may change conclusions and claims over time.

With this I think that nutritional science is also a soft science but still useful. It can change over time much more rapidly then a hard science. If the theory of gravity is dis-proven it could change the modern world as we know it, if we discover potato chips may be beneficial while bulking it may not be revolutionary.

To sum it up, soft sciences rely on hard sciences to support the foundational work that makes them a science (usually statistics).

In essence, psychology began as a soft science. But because of the fact that a positive-scientific approach became the golden standard in academic research, psychology had to keep up and started to apply the methods that are characteristic of hard science (experimental research based on quantifiable data) and with this, psychology became heavily involved in statistics.

However, because of it’s study object, the human mind, psychology will always hoover between soft and hard science.

[quote]Carnage wrote:
orion wrote:
A lot of what is called “psychology” is actually meta-psychology like object-relation theory.

That is rather “soft” but useful.

There is “hard” psychology too, like behaviorism, but even that deals with the fact that the human mind is very complex and therefore not something you can predict with absolute certainty.

It is probably a science based art like medicine.

I know and psychoanalysis is meta psychological if you think about it.

The object-relation theory comes from psychoanalysis actually.

[/quote]

[quote]grettiron wrote:
if you can’t write the fundamental laws as a differential equation then it’s pretty soft. are there even fundamental laws in psychology?[/quote]

I can write the fundamental laws of economics as a differentiable equation, and it’s a soft science.

Then again, I suppose you’re not claiming otherwise…damn my dumb ass for forgetting necessary and sufficient conditions.

[quote]blithe wrote:
grettiron wrote:
if you can’t write the fundamental laws as a differential equation then it’s pretty soft. are there even fundamental laws in psychology?

I can write the fundamental laws of economics as a differentiable equation, and it’s a soft science.

Then again, I suppose you’re not claiming otherwise…damn my dumb ass for forgetting necessary and sufficient conditions.[/quote]

necessary and sufficient a.k.a iff a.k.a. awesome. by that fact though, economics is more respectable than psychology in my eyes.

As a physicist, you can not compare the two disciplines. I would love for a psychologist to even step in the shoes of just an undergrad physics major.

[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
Modern Psychology is NOT to be mistaken for psychoanalysis. Modern psychology heavily depends on mathamtical and statistical analysis to make statments about PROBABILITIES. Thats what psychology is all about.

If you consider this “soft”, the clinical medicine is just as soft - and many many other fields.[/quote]

isn’t psychoanalysis just a TYPE of psychology theorizing that your problems as an adult are from your early childhood and are buried in your unconscious?

As a psychologist in training, a few points…

As others have mentioned, you need to define “hard science” and “soft science.” They are just layman’s terms that mean absolutely nothing in a scientific analysis unless you define them.

Because they are just layman’s terms and don’t really mean anything, there’s no right or wrong answer here. That being said, as someone who does a lot of research in psychology, and as someone who has a history in other sciences that are considered more “hard sciences” by most, there are a few differences between psychology and other disciplines that might make it more likely for someone to label psychology as a “soft science.” One, when working with humans, there’s a lack of experimental control when compared to other disciplines. That’s not to say that rigorous experimental control isn’t attempted; it is, it’s just not as common to be able to control the experimental environment in psychology to the degree in disciplines like chemistry.

Two, there are issues with measurement. One poster suggested that problems with “the mind” will always necessitate psychology being a “soft science.” One caveat here is that not all psychologists are concerned with the mind. The mind is just a label for something. For what? Depends on who you ask. Another poster suggested behaviorism, which generally rejects talk of the mind, is more of a “hard science.” I’m biased, but I agree. Nonetheless, there are measurement issues with measuring something as simple as behavior. My field doesn’t have the microscope or the scale. As such, there’s more error, more disagreement, and less reliablity and validity associated with any measurement done.

Three, there’s a shitload of bullshit in the field. I guess this is going to be the case for any field, but it pains me to say that my field is infested with people that are not scientists, have no interest in science, and give the field a bad name. Therefore, even if one assumes that psychology CAN be a hard science, the question of IF it is has to take this into consideration.

A few last remarks:

Bill, does your knowledge know any bounds? EMDR? Seriously?

Evolv, don’t be an ass. I’ve stepped in those shoes. Many others have as well.

Oh, there’s all KINDS of stuff I don’t know.