Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Psychology is a experimental science.

I think that psychology is empirical science. Experimental could be excessive with human beings. Ethics limits possibilities of experimentation until experiments with statistics are unuseful or impossible.

Mariano Ruiz Espejo

Yes,I agree with you.

I give you two examples of research: one is experimental, the other is not. Both are psychology:

Every science is experimental, as falsifiability theory, and psychology is a science then it is also experimental. It is not total idealistic to call it science, but restrictions are inherent part of research ethics.

Science uses an empirical approach. Empiricism (founded by John Locke) states that the only source of knowledge comes through our senses – e.g. sight, hearing etc. Thus, empiricism is the view that all knowledge is based on, or may come from experience. Based on this view, psychology is an experimental science based on its hypotheses and theories on experimentation.

s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist

yeah,both are psychology.But the one about existentialism,a lot of people think it's impossible to prove it.

Nazia Asad

But are ethical restrictions too severe?

Psychology,of course,is science.But it's hard to be an experimental science.

Today the answer to this question is 100% "yes". 120 years ago this was not the case - in Europe. There was even more controversy as to whether psychology as a science is primarily a hermeneutically-"understanding" science by recording and interpreting individual mental and emotional processes. Then the leading science is above all philosophy. That was the so-called philosophy of life in Europe at that time. Then psychology does not belong to "sciene" (i.e. the natural science) that uses experimental methods to research general laws and therefore neglects the individual-subjective moment.

But the development of the sciences already after the First World War has clearly shown psychology to be a natural science. That it also works hermeneutically and phenomenologically and - like every science - has to take ethical standards into account, must not be forgotten.

Nevertheless exist some areas of applied psychology where indivual understanding and interpreting of behavior plays the main role, for instance in ps. therapy and diagnosis.

Ali Alhayany

So,how can the"hallucinations"of schizophrenia be studied by experimental methods?hallucinating people in the lab?

Hein Retter

,how can the"hallucinations"of schizophrenia be studied by experimental methods?

Hein Retter

I've written a new theory of psychology.Would you like to comment on it?I would be honored if you could have a look.Thank you.

Duan Xian Xiang

I repeat the last sentence of my answer above: Nevertheless exist some areas of applied psychology where indivual understanding and interpreting of behavior plays the main role, for instance in ps. therapy and diagnosis.

In addition: You mentioned a good example: schizophrenia! There was in the seventies a therapeutic movement in some countries, in particular in Italy, Germany also in the US, to understand starting point and etiology of "schizophrenia" as a problem of communication of the patients, at the same time there wer much critics to the psychiatric clinics were patients have to live crammed with inhuman conditions. Partly psychiatric cases of schizophrenia were sent home and clinics closed. Later this "emanicpative treatment" were stopped and the suffering patients were have been clinically restored again. It was shown also by empirical research that the theory of communication with background that schizophrenia needs "understanding" is wrong or even false. As far as I know (I am not up to date) the origin of schizophrenia is still unexplained, but closely related to disorders in human metabolism.

Hein Retter

Thank you.In the field of applied psychology,it's a different story.

In addition: The question of why psychology became a natural science is clearly answered in the textbooks on the history of psychology: The first important fields of research in psychology were in the field of physiology, a subdiscipline of medicine. Great discoveries were made here in the course of the 19th century, I am thinking, for example, of Weber-Fechner's law. Another important experimental area concerned empirical learning research. - But there was also an interest in psychology within philosophy. The treatises by Wilhelm Dilthey is authoritative here.

Hein Retter

Personally,I think schizophrenia is due to a "psychological program"error.For example this case:

There is also a case that proves that improper use of psychological programs can create mental illness.

A woman with schizophrenia reported that she could always hear someone around her talking about her, but she could see no one when she investigated. She felt that her own auditory hallucinations were real. According to psychoanalysis, when she was in high school, she had poor interpersonal relationships and experienced great pressure in her studies. Once, she could not help but scream at her classmates during class, which made her even more isolated. Later, when the teacher came down from the podium and spoke to the other students, he whispered a few words about her. The therapist judged that this experience was not an auditory hallucination. The patient herself later admitted that she really did hear the teacher and her classmates talk about her.

Later, because of her poor interpersonal relationships, she was sometimes discussed by her classmates behind her back. As a result, she became increasingly sensitive. As long as two students bowed their heads to talk, she thought they were talking about her. One day, when she was alone at home, she suddenly heard someone talking about her in a corner with a clear voice. She was shocked at the time because she knew that there was no one was there, and her auditory hallucinations came into being.

In this case (E), it can be seen that her auditory hallucination is purely created by herself. The mental psychology of the person is closely related to the body. She suggested to herself that others were talking about her, and she did so repeatedly. The quantitative change led to a qualitative change—her brain was influenced by her own mental suggestions and really produced a sensation of hearing others talking.

Because she improperly ran the program of "paying attention to others who talk about myself," she created the symptoms of auditory hallucinations.

Hein Retter

Weber-Fechner's law ?is this still in use？

Hein Retter

Liken the human body to a compute,"physiology" is equivalent to"computer hardware",shouldn't psychology study "software"?

I follow answers

best regards

Every so called science is not 100%, it is only evidenced with a certain probability from 5% wrong to far less. There is no absolute truth in this world there are only hypotheses about what is already given and there. Do you know with 100% certainty from where you came as a human being and do you know why your brain works and are you 100% sure that you know? Who cares what a lot of people thinks, also a lot of people died in the faith on Hitler. Were they right?

s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist

This has nothing to do with psychology,is it experimental science?

s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist

Mainly due to legal and ethical constraints.

Duan Xian Xiang

(1) I do not have the desire to regard the questions that are asked to me to claim as "authoritative" truth, they are merely answers that I give as an individual scientist on the basis of my state of knowledge. Therefore I recommend you to ask this question at every case also to other specialists, there are enough available in RG.

If someone announces a "knowledge" or "truth, for example in a respected journal, then it is not in my interest to quote the presented research result as "truth" in faith, but on the contrary: I try to contradict the assertion of my colleagues with good arguments.

(2) From this point of view, I maintain the following (in answer to your question):

(a) You wrote: Liken the human body to a compute, "physiology" is equivalent to "computer hardware." I think this one's wrong in this context. It doesn't make my point. My statement is clearly in the context of the history of psychology in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is advisable to read more about it thoroughly before asking complex questions or making complex comparisons.

(b) You ask, Shouldn't psychology study 'software'? The question is very imprecise, and probably you can answer it the way you think is right. No problem!

(c) It is not prohibited for an individual scientist (like you) to investigate the question posed itself. I would support you in that endeavor. Because you don't have to rely on any answers from other people (like me). So go ahead.

Hein Retter

Duan Xian Xiang ,

Definitely I think as it works and covers the issues one after another and dictates the decision.

Thanks

s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist

What do you think of my program theory?I think it's a theory that unifies psychology.

"Process-based"(PBT) therapy has a lot to do with this theory.

Hein Retter

That's good

Hein Retter

My "Psychological Program" theory is studying "software",and now the psychological world tends to study "hardware",brain science,brain nerves,and so on,and this direction is not right.

Duan Xian Xiang

Subject: Schizophrenia

I am not a trained clinical psychologist and I have worked in psychiatry in cooperation with psychiatrists not for a long time. But one thing I know and found much confirmation in clinical treatment:

(1) A person hit from schiziphrenia is a severely suffering person. The illness is so terrible that one cannot put oneself in the mental situation of this suffering. And the severe consequences of immobilization with medication are well-knwon.

(2) Secondly, the symptoms of schizophrenia are extremely varied, of course there are typical symptoms, but many things fall out. In some cases, aggressive behavior may also occur, but feeling the suffering of schizophrenics was a very deep experience for me personally.

(3) Everyone can, of course, develop their own theories and observations about it.

Hein Retter

I think schizophrenia is due to a program failure.

Hein Retter

Process-based therapy is changing the patient's psychological program(process).

Human beings are blessed by 'Nature' & any 'Human Action' or 'Authoritative Action' effecting inherent rights via,

1. 'Restrict Freedom of Religion'

2. 'Discrimination on constitutional grounds'

3. 'Psychological Experiment on Human being'

4. Penetration in internal security or private life of individuals

5. Unwanted compression of 'Liberty'

All 'Five' may be treated 'Offences' for betterment of 'Humanity' at large

Duan Xian Xiang

The starting points of beginning of modern psychological research had began as part of physiological research. Fechner, origiginally physicist, was for a long time professor at the unversity of Leipzig. The interest was to test kinds of subjective perception of test subjects by a setting of objective stimuli. How must be the strongness of a stimulus. You may better read an online article about "psychophysics". How great must the strength of a stimulus be for it to be perceived at all? How large must the distance between two objective stimuli on the skin surface be in order to be perceived as a single stimulus (or as two separate stimuli)? Fechner was mainly concerned with stimulus thresholds. His "law" proposed relationship between the magnitude of a physical stimulus and the intensity or strength that people feel. It is also tody valid.

Hein Retter

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Psychology is a experimental science.

Duan Xian Xiang

on truth in psychology in addition to a given answer of S_Beatrice_Ewalds-Kvist, above

I am referring to my answer, given in the thread about homeopathy, on truth. Logically the classic deduction is truth - but without value, because notihing new is said: All human beings are mortal. You're a human being: (conclusion) You're mortal. - I say it's true, but nothing new.

Only the inductive conclusion becomes interesting, because you conclude here from some cases or only one observed case on the totality of the cases, the polpulation. This conclusion is incomplete and risky, but it brings a new insight if it is correct. The philosopher Karl Popper has intensively dealt with this problem that the inductive conclusion is not truthful and has developed his method of "falsification".

Another possibility is provided by modern test statistics to solve the problem of incomplete conclusions. Given the case, you have 2 different random samples of cases, each with the measurement of an item. You want to know whether the populations of these two samples, whose characterics you don't know, of course, differ. Normally, the research hypothesis claims that there is such a difference, which you tend to call as "statistical significant"; it is tested against the "null hypothesis", which claimes: no "real" difference between the populations, the seen difference of values is accidance, or: both samples belong to the same population (in relation to the mesuread item).

(Continuaton in my following answer).

Duan Xian Xiang (continuation)

Now comes the trick. You can answer the question by checking the variances (or the standard deviation from mean value, which creates the - somewhat abstract - concept of variance) of of both samples, but you must introduce the concept of probabilities of error and define it from the beginning. Usually 5%. But if it is very important - as is the case with drug effects - to interpret differences (which almost always exist in different numerical values) between the samples not as "accidentally" but as statistically significant, then you work better with a probability of error of 1 %. This strengthens the null hypothesis from the outset. With such a low probability of error, differences between the mean values of the variances must be significantly much larger in order to be statistically significant (there are tables that show a critical value after the variance check: but today the researchers do everything with the SPSS program by computer key). The noted procedure

However, if you have two very large samples, each with many 100 test subjects, then the sample size approaches the population, and any small difference in the results of the measurement (Compare both means of the samples!) is reported as statistically significant. There are limits to the statistics for sample mean value comparisons.

Conclusion: With the introduction of a statistical concept of truth, a risk value is always introduced, the size of which the researcher must determine from the outset.

It is definitely and experimental science by all standards.

In addition to statistical testing of hypotheses I have given above, I mention: The described process requires the distribution of the data in the sense of Gaussian normal distribution. If this requirement, which must be checked at the beginning of the investigation as theoretical right (the praxis of distribution of measured characteristics shows not often an ideal of Gaussian curve), is not met, so-called "distribution-free" statistical tests are used.

Quantitative and qualitative studies:

In social science and human science we know quantitative and qualitative research. In psychology as science, there is in my view a clear dominance of quantitative research which is - seen as ideal - verifiable by several repeat studies carried out under as similar conditions as possible. - Qualitative studies, of course, also exist in empirical psychology, for example in life course research or in art psychology. But here the ideal scientific verifiability is basically not desirable, because it concerns unique situations, persons or circumstances that are researched. Qualitative research also knows several rational research approaches, but they lie much more in the interpretation of subjective performance and spoken or written linguistic statements of the subjeczt in question, but hardly in the area of measuring behaviour, as experimental psychology does.

Experimental psychology examines relationships between human behavior and the mind. Experimental psychology is centered on scientific research and experimentation.

Hein Retter

However,the present method of psychological quantification is not right.

Dmytro Leshchenko

I fully support your statement

Hein Retter

Duan Xian Xiang

Perhaps you are right to a certain extent, but to discuss your opinion or statement you should give more background and detailed reasons for your thought.

Dmytro Leshchenko

Experimental psychology is self-deceptive research,its research scope is very narrow,abnormal psychology can not study.

Tatjana Atanasijevic

Really? So,how can the"hallucinations"of schizophrenia be studied by experimental methods?hallucinating people in the lab?

Duan Xian Xiang

See my note above on quantitative and qualitative studies. In some fields of psychology research has more quantitative traits. This can also include some quantitative research, sometmes. Research methods must be adequat to the research task and the research subject. In abnormal psychology your investigation perhaps is more qualitative this doesn't disclouse for instance quantiative studies on therapy success.

Hein Retter

Hein Retter

Ok,Current psychological experiments use data that are subjective and indirect. For example, the direct quantity measurement method is a type of direct measurement but also relies on the individual’s subjective estimates, whereas the constant stimulation method and the minimal change method are indirect measurement methods. These data do not meet the stringent scientific requirements of experiments.

For psychology to become a real, empirical “science of the mind”, we need to directly measure the physiological reactions of psychological phenomena

Hein Retter

The success of the treatment is quantifiable,but some of it is not easy

Hei Retter

The goal of psychotherapy is to change the psychological process,The psychological process is the continuous change of physical response,

and the changes in the body's physiological response need to be tracked and measured with micro instruments,which are installed on the subjects,and the data collected will be very large.

I follow the question.

I think it is experimental science with many cases being treated successfully because the treatment schools are different in terms of dealing with such situations

I follow the question.

Duan Xian Xiang

The total wiring of the person in need of therapy by no means applies to all types of psychotherapy, in essence it only applies to behavioural therapy.

Cabling requires the consent of the patient. If someone is doing a therapy in the sense of the client-centered method to learn to make important life decisions immediately instead of avoiding them again and again, the therapist probably won't wire the participant, why should he?

But there may be a new development today - somewhere that psychotherapy is only practicing beyond behavioural therapy in a wired state. This is not my ideal, and I also do not know the state of full wiring in Germany for any kind of therapy. This seems rather pointless to me in psychoanalytic therapy, but, as I said, there may be new developments that I am not aware of.

In addition to the said above: At any case in our discussion we have to distinguish between experimantal psychology als the normal pattern of research in scientific psychology and psychotherapy as a method of applying clincal theories to to relieve, heal or correct mental ailments or behavioural abnormalities.