Is psychology really a science?

Answer 1

Criticisms of psychology
Although modern mainstream psychology largely attempts to be a scientific endeavor, the field has a history of controversy. Some criticisms of psychology have been made on ethical and philosophical grounds. Some have argued that by subjecting the human mind to experimentation and statistical study, psychologists objectify persons; because it treats human beings as things, as objects that can be examined by experiment, psychology is sometimes portrayed as dehumanizing, ignoring or downplaying what is most essential about being human.

Another common criticism of psychology concerns its fuzziness as a science. Since some areas of psychological research rely on "soft" methods such as surveys and questionnaires, some have said, those areas of psychology are not as scientific as they claim to be. Furthermore, methods such as introspection and so-called expert analysis are commonplace, methods which reek of subjectivity and rely on speculation have caused many to dispute whether psychology should even be classified as a science, since objectivity is the number one rule for any true science.

Many believe that the mind is not amenable to quantitative scientific research, and as support for their criticism cite the vast theoretical diversity of psychology, a discipline which agrees on very little about how the mind works.

One approach calling itself critical psychology takes almost an opposite approach. Rather than scientific validity being the standard against which psychology research should be judged, critical psychology uses philosophical, analytical, political, economic and social theories such as Marxism, constructionism, discourse analysis and qualitative approaches to criticize mainstream psychology, claiming among other things that it serves as a bulwark of an unjust or unsatisfying status quo when it should, instead, use its methods and knowledge base to critique and change societal norms.

Another criticism levelled at psychology and cognitive science is that the philosophical underpinnings of research are flawed. See Functionalism (psychology) for more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Criticisms_of_psychology

Answer 2

Well, since you put it that way I guess you have a good point. Trying to understand psychological activity objectively is to understand its many complexities enough to know where they are and why they are that way. Just to understand it in such a way, many years of class and study are needed. By the time it is over all of those, and many more things, have been covered. And that is where it all begins. If a person gets to that point they have enough of an understanding of the arguments to be able to identify the real from the unreal when it comes to psychological activities.

Answer 3

I think that some scientist go nuts thing to prove that

Answer 4

Obviously it is!