The Science of Psychology?

[Drake L. Dragon]

I was reading my Physics textbook one day, which was read to enunciate that the primary classification of what is or isn't a science is not whether a theory could be proven or not but whether a theory by nature is testable or not, and the assertion had me thinking.  The author of my Physics textbook wasn't the only person who believed in the primary classification.  Albert Einstein does, after all, say, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" (BrainyQuote.com).  If, however, the ability for a scientific theory to be disproved precedes the proving of a scientific theory, then what becomes of psychology or supposed sciences related?  Maybe you could state that all psychological theories obey the primary classification law.  However, was Oedipus Complex a testable theory?  It absolutely founded itself more upon speculation than testing, and, from what I read, Sigmund Freud may have went as far as to utilize the argument of self-denial to disperse criticism for his psychological theory.  If psychology is a science of the mind, what separates Buddhism from being a science of the mind as well?  The Buddha certainly spent a lot of time speculating about the mind just like Sigmund Freud.

The practical question is simple.  If psychology is more speculation than science, why should a psychological problem not attested by neurology be an excuse for crimes such as murder, stealing, etc.?  If the Courts don't accept polygraph tests, which have about a 85 to 89 percent accuracy in this summary, why should the testament of a psychologist be more accurate than a machine in terms of describing the state of mind of a plaintiff or a defendant beyond his or her consent? (CreativeLoafing.com)

[Will]

Psychology utilizes the scientific method in order to establish testable and predictive theories which have to go through a serious peer review process. Counseling isn't 100% scientific, as it utilizes a certain intuition, but psychology itself, as far as I understand it, is science.

[Drake L. Dragon]

Psychology utilizes the scientific method in order to establish testable and predictive theories which have to go through a serious peer review process. Counseling isn't 100% scientific, as it utilizes a certain intuition, but psychology itself, as far as I understand it, is science.

How, however, would you disprove the idea of the id, ego, or super ego? (Wilderdom.com)  Sure, the insights are intriguing, but how are they provable at all, much less testable?  Why couldn't someone interpret the mind in this manner?

I think that, ultimately, man, in all it's existence, is a product of it's will. Thoughts occur as a function of what man wills. Schopenhauer reasons that the 'Wille zum Leben' is the very core of reality and of things-in-itself (1). I personally differ from his idea in the sense that I do not think that 'will' is that thing-in-itself, but rather one of the first levels of subjectification from 'consciousness'. For the matter at hand such separations are of no consequence though, so I will not elaborate on the matter. What is important is the similarity between myself and Schopenhauer on that process in man that Schopenhauer named 'Wille zum Leben'.

The idea that thoughts are a product of the will is a product of my belief that man does have a free will in the sense that will does not only occur as attached to a certain thought. Like Schopenhauer I am of the firm belief that will an sich exists separate of particular desires. because of that a freedom of the will exists to me. If I would have had the thought that will only exists as attached to a thought (as desire and such), the form of freedom I am convinced exists could not be. Then it would be a causal process. My thought is, like Schopenhauer, that will is not causal. Therefore a choice exists in what one wills.

My idea that freedom of will exists leads to the thought that mankind's natural state is free. One might even conclude that this goes for every being. Although freedom usually is a given every being may be restrained in a physical or mental way. A cage can be made of bars, flowers or perhaps desires. Is it not so that Christians will to go to the church because if they do not they would be sinning for instance? In that example will is applicated to 'sunday church' and thus produces a causal reaction: go there. Such unseen bonds are everywhere. One puts on a nice parfume to charm a girl, pray before dinner for blessings of the Lord and don't drive through a red light to avoid a ticket. One need only convince an individual of a certain 'good' and people shall will to act accordingly. (Arjen)

Sure, the member utilizes Sigmund Freud afterwords, but his utilization was merely to support his justification of anarchy, but his interpretation of the mind has his own assertions separate from Sigmund Freud's, but Sigmund Freud's psychological theories nevertheless have the authority of science behind the theories.  Why, then, does Sigmund Freud, or any other psychologist, have more authority than Aristotle, Socrates, Buddha, Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, etc. who all, technically, proved their philosophies of the mind to the same extent that Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, etc. did and who all have the same capacity of testability in their philosophies.

[Will]

How, however, would you disprove the idea of the id, ego, or super ego?

You don't. The psychic apparatus is a hypothesis, not a theory. Not only that, but it's generally considered to be out of date. Freud was an incredible mind and is rightfully considered the father of modern psychology, but many of his proposed hypothesis have subsequently been disproved. The fact they've been disproved lends credibility to psychology as a science.

[Drake L. Dragon]

How, however, would you disprove the idea of the id, ego, or super ego?

You don't. The psychic apparatus is a hypothesis, not a theory. Not only that, but it's generally considered to be out of date. Freud was an incredible mind and is rightfully considered the father of modern psychology, but many of his proposed hypothesis have subsequently been disproved. The fact they've been disproved lends credibility to psychology as a science.

Well, I agree that the psychic apparatus is not a theory but a hypothesis.  I was, however, agreeing to disagree, because it would seem as though I would have been making presumptions about the arguments in the first place.  If we do agree that the psychic apparatus, the fundamental foundation of Sigmund Freud's psychology, is only a hypothesis and hasn't been experimented, analyzed, and communicated as a theory to the scientific community, then what modern psychological hypotheses are true theories -- that have actually been proven through testing rather than ostensibly conjecture and research?  Even so, how was the psychic apparatus disproved, if it was only a hypothesis?  Only theories can be proven or disproved.  If it was disproved, because it was considered to be out of date, scientists would have committed a logical fallacy.  If it was a hypothesis that couldn't even have an experiment to prove its own claim, much less allow for one to disprove its own claim, then wouldn't that just keep the psychological hypothesis an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is, by its very name, untestable, such as the question of the existence of the Deist God?

[Will]

If you're looking for evidence modern psychology is a science, you need look no further than the DSM. The DSM is a book which contains in it numerous tested, verified, and predictive scientific theories in the area of psychology. Everything I know of in the DSM started as a hypothesis. "Interesting," a psychologist would say, "I'm seeing these symptoms in this specific group often. I wonder if they're similar or even the same?" That's when the testing begins. Studies are held, data is tracked carefully, and then reviewed to see if it supports the hypothesis. If it does, then the peer review system kicks in. The DSM has several levels of peer review, including at the end a vote by peers, members of the APA, to include the new diagnosis in the DSM. Not only that, but after something's been included in the DSM, it can be challenged and then re-reviewed by peers. The most famous (or perhaps infamous) case is that of homosexuality. Homosexuality was added to the DSM many years ago, and unfortunately social bias found its way into the process. Once a case had been made that homosexuality was not an emotional disorder, along with a mountain of evidence, a vote was held and it was removed. The theory, that homosexuality was an emotional disorder, was disproved by using the scientific method, evidence, and peer review.

If we do agree that the psychic apparatus, the fundamental foundation of Sigmund Freud's psychology, is only a hypothesis and hasn't been experimented, analyzed, and communicated as a theory to the scientific community, then what modern psychological hypotheses are true theories -- that have actually been proven through testing rather than ostensibly conjecture and research?  Even so, how was the psychic apparatus disproved, if it was only a hypothesis?Only theories can be proven or disproved.  If it was disproved, because it was considered to be out of date, scientists would have committed a logical fallacy.  If it was a hypothesis that couldn't even have an experiment to prove its own claim, much less allow for one to disprove its own claim, then wouldn't that just keep the psychological hypothesis an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is, by its very name, untestable, such as the question of the existence of the Deist God?

If I remember correctly from school (and I'm a good 4 years out of school in an unrelated field to my major) the psychic apparatus was demonstrated to be incorrect. In the interest of keeping this argument as honest as possible, I don't specifically remember the instance. If you'd like, I can try to find it over the weekend when I have some time.

[Squid]

Drake, it seems the points you are bringing up are in reference to psychodynamic concepts proposed by Freud and expanded upon by Jung and other psychodynamicists.  However, such concepts are effectively moot in most of psychology.  Psychology as a entire field is extremely diverse with many differing sub-fields. Psychodynamics is just one sub-field and even most counselors do not utilize psychodynamic techniques in favor of the more robust cognitive behavioral techniques.  However, my area of psychology is in the category of health psychology but my own graduate work would be more correctly labeled as psychophysiology.  The only time in my entire education I've ever encountered Freud's ideas was discussions on the history of psychology.  That's not to say all of Freud's work was useless but modern neuroscience, biological psychology came along and we have something far superior than his work which was based almost entirely on case studies.  Psychodynamicism still exists in psychology even today but it represents only a small section.

My point is that assuming Freud's stuff represents the entire field of psychology is incorrect.