When will psychology finally be recognized as a pseudoscience?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Soft sciences deal in statistics instead of an accurate measurement.  Theories often can't be disproved, and multiple explanations exist for any observation.  It is harder to separate the real science from the pseudo-science.

That's an interesting comment; it seems to me that almost all of science deals with statistics. From the extraction of data in fMRI research, to the very definition of evolution as changes in allele frequency. Science tends to be quantitative, which is to stay it can be analyzed statistically.

[vulcanlogician]

I think he meant that's ALL they have.

Behavioral psychologists can make accurate measurements though.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm not sure that behavioral psychologists exist anymore; behaviorism is as outdated of an approach as Freudianism. Perhaps experimental psychologists are who you have in mind?

Behaviorism offered a very narrow way of answering questions. This is perhaps most notable in the way it would reframe words: Memory became learning, perception became discrimination, language became verbal behavior. But as Noam Chomsky (one of the key players in ending behaviorism) reportedly said, defining psychology as the science of behavior is like defining physics as the science of meter reading. In a general sense, every psychologist is still a "behavioral" psychologist, because behavior is all we can observe. The difference being that behavior is now used as a meter for measuring cognition and mental states.

[Belacqua]

I'm not sure that behavioral psychologists exist anymore; behaviorism is as outdated of an approach as Freudianism. Perhaps experimental psychologists are who you have in mind?

This is why I thought it was odd to say we focus too much on early guys, and then use Skinner as an example of someone more current.

[brewer]

There are all kinds of applications derived from behavioral psychology that are being used in treatment. PTSD, autism, addiction and phobias easily come to mind.

[Belacqua]

I think many forum members are slightly confusing psychology as a clinical practice, with psychology as a scientific endeavor. By analogy they are as unique to each other as biology is to medicine.

Psychology studies the behavioral and cognitive aspects of the brain. Vision, perception, memory, language, emotion, knowledge, reasoning, these are just a fraction of the things studied under cognition. To be a psychologist you often have to be highly interdisciplinary. Behavioral geneticists are experts in the biological side of things. Social psychologists on the sociological and anthropological side. Some psychologists study ingestive behavior, satiety, eating, and are experts on the nutritional side of things. You have fields with names as impossible to pronounce as psychoneuroimmunology. You have psychologists that work on computers and technology, for example, with the military developing cockpits suited for the cognitive capacity of fighter pilots

Everywhere the brain goes psychology goes.

Yes this is an excellent point. 

I need to remember that psychology is a big umbrella that covers a lot of different aspects, and some are a lot more sciencey than others. 

So for example the immediate relief of acute psychological issues like crippling anxiety, I'm guessing, would be likely to involve more chemistry and things like fMRI studies. And it is without doubt a good thing to study.

Then on the less sciencey side, my niece is a professional music therapist for children, and she helps them with things like the ability to focus on tasks and take turns. She works especially with little kids who have trouble adapting to school. This is a lot more interpersonal, and anything quantifiable is fairly fuzzy. Like little Subject A could sit still for 7.5 minutes instead of 6 minutes. 

And naturally psychologists would work on all kinds of issues that aren't apparent to me. Like finding ways to make long-distance flights more tolerable. And who can forget the psychologists who worked with the CIA to make torture more effective. 

Since I'm not involved in those projects and (knock wood) I currently don't have any acute symptoms that need relieving, I've been thinking more of the personal-knowledge side of psychology. Like a long-term and not very scientific effort at getting to know oneself, and understanding why one turned out a certain way. 

But you're right I need to keep a broader view of things.

---

There are all kinds of applications derived from behavioral psychology that are being used in treatment. PTSD, autism, addiction and phobias easily come to mind.

And many many concepts introduced by Freud and Jung are still used by serious and up-to-date psychologists today.

This is not a question of "cancel culture," where an earlier guy gets rejected tout court.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And many many concepts introduced by Freud and Jung are still used by serious and up-to-date psychologists today.

This is not a question of "cancel culture," where an earlier guy gets rejected tout court.

Right, these revolutions offer shifts in perspective and methodology, rather than an overhaul of previous discovery.

[Ranjr]

This is why I thought it was odd to say we focus too much on early guys, and then use Skinner as an example of someone more current.

Not more current.  That's your misunderstanding.  I brought up Skinner, as an example of psychologists who "make testable predictions"

[polymath257]

Classical and operant conditioning make testable predictions.  Too many here are focused on early theorists while ignoring Skinner and the like.

For those who wax philosophical over every little thing (eyeroll included), let me ask:  do we really want a science that links neurology to thoughts?  Because that's sounds dystopian AF.

Well, we are already producing implants that can read minds and allow paralyzed people to use their minds to write on a computer. I suspect that it won't be long before prosthetics will be mind-controled and thereby much more useful.

And, if thoughts and neurology *are* linked, then the science will eventually be produced. Like most science and technology, it will have both good and bad effects. But to pretend they are not linked when, in fact, they are, seems just like denial.

[Belacqua]

This is why I thought it was odd to say we focus too much on early guys, and then use Skinner as an example of someone more current.

Not more current.  That's your misunderstanding.  I brought up Skinner, as an example of psychologists who "make testable predictions"

Here is what you said:

Classical and operant conditioning make testable predictions.  Too many here are focused on early theorists while ignoring Skinner and the like.

It contrasts "early theorists" with "Skinner and the like." 

Thank you for clarifying that you intended to emphasize testability and not earliness. In 2021, Skinner appears to be an early theorist who attempted testability.