Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Biologist And A Psychologist Square Off Over The Definition Of Science
Science 2.0 ^ | 7-17-2012 | Hank Campbell

Posted on 07/18/2012 6:34:28 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot

... Increasingly, the respect of science (and scientists) by the public has been dropping and a part of that reason is because the line of what science is has become fuzzy.

(snip) ... It's not to say they ('soft science') don't have value, obviously they do, but engineering also has value. It is not science. Teaching has terrific value. It is not a science. Same for mathematics and economics. Lots of fields have applied benefits and consumer marketing shows that applied psychology is darn rigorous, even though it isn't science. Why are psychologists so touchy if their offices are not in the science buildings?

Wilson seems to confuse surveys and statistics with science. ....

(Snip) Dr. Mark Changizi...replied

"I *have* complained in my writing that, although psychology is filled with lots of brilliant experiments (and, like any field, a bunch of bad ones), the interpretations of them are often ambiguous. ...which is what makes cognitive science / psychology / neuroscience enjoyable -- the furniture is easier to move around. Not because it's not science, but because it's hard -- as in "difficult to conquer" -- science. Theory is much more difficult, because it's so damned complicated."

.... I don't believe it is as cut and dried as Berezow laid out - we just had a Higgs particle discovery that did not have four of those five criteria in 1964 and it's difficult to claim those physicists were not scientists. But claiming the entire science world are 'bullies' if it hurts the feelings of psychologists by lumping them in with the humanities, as Wilson did, is not really very convincing because it appeals to emotion rather than evidence. Which is a very social science thing to do.

(Excerpt) Read more at science20.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: sciencedefinition; softscience
Continued discussion from

(1) Timothy Wilson, professor of psycology at University of Virginia, wrote in LA Times Stop bullying the 'soft' sciences

(2) Alex B. Berezow, a microbiologist, responded in LA Times Why psychology isn't science

1 posted on 07/18/2012 6:34:41 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

the Bible didn’t say that it taught mathematics, geography, astromony, et. al. But it does reveal that it is the authority on the soul of man, which is the intellectual and the emotional qualities thereof.

Therefore I reject psychology.

After all, Whom are you to believe? Freud? Maslov? Pavlov? Jung? Perhaps Skinner? They all disagreed with each other.

psychology is a religion that would cut your head open and lobotomize you. Then they would think they did a good thing.

No Thanks.

Blessings, Bobo


2 posted on 07/18/2012 6:43:07 PM PDT by bobo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
"If it can't be expressed in mathematics, it's not science, it's superstition."

"Most so-called scientists are bottle washers and button sorters."
- Robert Heinlein.

3 posted on 07/18/2012 6:46:28 PM PDT by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
If you can't come up with a theory, and a test for correctness, and then have that test repeated by another team to achieve the same results, it ain't science.

Cooks dream up recipes, test them, pass them off to other kitchens to verify the results. ;)

/johnny

4 posted on 07/18/2012 6:46:54 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The shrink is wrong.

I didn’t read past the title.


5 posted on 07/18/2012 6:53:51 PM PDT by G Larry (I'm under no obligation to be a passive victim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

There are two kinds of science, Physics and stamp collecting.


6 posted on 07/18/2012 7:01:01 PM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Harvard Law: Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases.

IMHO, sort of covers both psychology and biology...

I still can't get over the [female] MIT biologist that went into a tizzy when then-Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that there just might be a difference between genders.

With "biologists" like that, Berezow has his work cut out for him.

I'm also of the opinion that psychology is more of an art, hence the constant lack of progress in the field.

7 posted on 07/18/2012 7:01:24 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke

A cute example of the crap that can be stirred up by a female was illustrated in the DILBERT comic strip in Tuesday’s papers.


8 posted on 07/18/2012 7:30:10 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Well the psychologist is just a crybaby and needs to apply a little WGAF to what the scientist thinks and my guess is the scientist is a poor scientist who tries to feel better about that by belittling anyone who is not a scientist.


9 posted on 07/19/2012 1:49:56 PM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Oh, it’s time for Home Economics Department to move to science section!


10 posted on 07/19/2012 1:52:26 PM PDT by paudio (OTP: Why do people want to rehire a mechanic who clearly only made their car worse than before?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: paudio

If you ever saw Alton Brown’s show, you’d know it belongs there.


11 posted on 07/19/2012 2:02:57 PM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
It sounds like something he just needed to get off his chest and it is good he did.
12 posted on 07/19/2012 2:20:48 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

Haha... you’re right. But, Good Eats ended a year ago.


13 posted on 07/19/2012 7:55:13 PM PDT by paudio (OTP: Why do people want to rehire a mechanic who clearly only made their car worse than before?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

We can all pick nits about how much of biology satisfies those criteria, and physics also. Generally, science is about explaining (most of) the world according to natural laws and psychology cannot really do that.

I am confused about what the author meant by 'science'. Is it a set of methods (like in the first paragraph), or is it a set of knowledge associated with a concept of 'natural laws'--whatever he meant by that (like in the second paragraph)?

14 posted on 07/19/2012 8:08:40 PM PDT by paudio (OTP: Why do people want to rehire a mechanic who clearly only made their car worse than before?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

True ‘nuf. And when we’re left with the likes of Rachael Ray, we’re back to art and not science.


15 posted on 07/19/2012 8:54:12 PM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson