Scientific modeling of Psychological Truth is hard. Standard nomenclature is difficult when most of our constructs are expressed in the modern languages (as opposed to having a periodic table of the emotions, let's say, that is universal). To make matters worse, we rely on somewhat unreliable statistics to tell us whether or not we are Right. Correct. In the general area of Truth.
Is this a Science?
I’m going to say Yes. (Obviously.) But ours is a developing science. Somewhere on the continuum between Alchemy and Chemistry, Astrology and Astronomy.
It has been suggested that Psychology is the Science before Neurology.
I disagree. Neurological science is going to massively inform Psychology. But it is never going to replace it. The reason for this is that nobody goes around saying ‘Oh my neurons are firing wrong today’. We say ‘I feel sad!’ or ‘I feel happy!’. And we say those things in predictable ways. The existence of a micro-level construct does not preclude the existence of (or the importance of) the macro-level construct.
Depression is not just a problem in the brain; it is a diseased state of mind and ALSO a problem in the brain.
That being said, I think Psychology will split off into Science-Parts, and Non-Science Parts. In the future,I think this is what the Science and the Non-Science of Psychology will look like:
- Research psychology = Science in its own right. And with major overlap in the biomedical sciences, mainly neuroscience.
- Clinical psychology = Both science and alchemy.
- Philosophical psychology = Philosophy.
- Lay psychology = Some fun, some practical, some common sense. And some derived from the above.
In short, I am trying to be clear about the Raison-D’Ëtre of psychology in modern science. In talking to my colleagues, I think there is a shared and only half-spoken unease about the place of our science in the world today. Who are we, and what are we good at?
I think the answers are there. I think there will be changes to how we define ourselves. But the issues that psychology talks about (e.g., relationships, group dynamics, mental health, how we think and why we do things) are so fundamental to our well being and operation as individuals and as a society that we have to study them scientifically, even if there are also other ways to approach them.
After all, when I think of the reasons I went into this crazy field, I remember them clearly. I thought that a Scientific Psychology would incorporate all my favourite parts of Mathematics, Philosophy, Medicine, and Theology. And I still do.
--
See Part 1
I think that the fractioning of Psychology has already begun. In my own department, the Clinical folk are worlds away from the neuroscience/ experimental people (people v. rats, as I like to say). In colleges and universities across the country, Neuroscience departments are popping up as separate entitites from the Psychology departments. As an undergrad, I witnessed the complementary yet separate Neuroscience & Behavior program be developed from the "hard science" classes in the Psych department (and, ultimately the Biology & Chemistry departments). However, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. We are miles away from the days of Socrates and Aristotle and the birth of psychology as we know it today. As our knowledge base grows, it may be necessary to break off into several science lands in order to keep delving into the depths of the knowledge to be found there. Fear not! I think that this is exciting. As you suggest, we cannot entirely separate these topics from each other, as Psychology ultimately is a combination of several influences.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Kicked up some dust in my noggin-
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion all sciences rely on a base of epistemological rules. "science in it's own right" is so terribly philosophical! I have talked with Profs and Engineers that hold entirely different faith systems to heart! It blows me away that they can be working on the same project, say the search for the Higgs boson or the micro world of neurology and not share the same beliefs on a priori or a posteriori origins.
Of course, I have driven the neuropathway to philosophy deeper than any other lense I can out on so I would take it there. Or, I'm feeling philosophical tonight.
<3
Ruby
I am so glad you brought up this point! I am completely blown away by the difference between functionalist (engineers often, but not only) and fundamentalist scientists in the approach to and interpretation of data. Here I was thinking that we were all reductionists! But science comprises many other faiths.
ReplyDeleteThere absolutely is strength in our diversity. It just comes as a bit of a shock when you're not expecting it...