Sherab Dorje wrote:Well, you can just take your 2c back buddy. You are describing psychotherapy, not psychology. I am a qualified psychologist. In order (back in my day) to qualify as a psychologist you had to be a behavioural scientist. I have spent more time gathering and analysing statistics, learning correct data evaluation techniques, learning and applying experimental models, etc... then most of my "hard science" engineer friends.Jesse wrote:Psychology works with intangibles; experiences, emotions, thoughts, and habits, and that is exactly why it is considered a soft science.
Just my 2c.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/und ... e-argument
IV. Psychology isn't falsifiable
This criticism comes from within our own field as well as from the outside: Psychologists too often publish positive findings--that is findings that support rather than contradict hypotheses. Publication of primarily positive findings suggests that psychologists are more interested in supporting their own beliefs about human experience than in finding truth about that experience. It is because of this trend that one of my colleagues suggested that our field contains more lawyers than scientists (here).
This criticism is actually a fair one in my book--psychologists are often likely to bury data that does not support their theories about the world (even famous psychologists like Stanley Milgram are guilty of this). This practice strikes me as unscientific because it renders hypotheses more difficult to falsify. However, the good news is that efforts are underway to pay more attention to negative findings (see here).
I find it surprising that people within your own field disagree.