Is psychology actually a science?

I can't help but feel like psychology often ends up dancing right on the edge of things that seem almost magical or even occult in nature.

If only they actually worked in 🙄

By the way, psychology is still a legitimate science 😉

I’m with crimsonjackal8 on this one. It might not be as cut and dry as chemistry, biology, or physics, but it still relies on legitimate methods, doesn't it?

Drew Reed6 said:I can't help but feel like psychology constantly dances on the thin line between scientific study and the occult.

Honestly, physics isn't much different. 😉

Daniel Chavez14 said:The same logic applies to physics, too. 😉

Any science that’s sufficiently advanced is basically indistinguishable from magic!

Now, any guesses on who first coined that one...?

Psychology is undeniably a science. It falls squarely within the realm of the empirical social sciences. If you look at how the disciplines are structured, its closest neighbors in the academic hierarchy would be anthropology and sociology.

The year was 1909.

Back then, Jung and Freud were actually close friends.

Legend has it that Freud once gave Jung a bit of a hard time, basically telling him he needed to look more into spirituality, claiming he was getting too bogged down in the "dark, murky sludge of the occult." I guess Jung felt this intense, visceral reaction deep in his gut at that exact moment. Right then, both of them heard this sudden, loud bang coming from the direction of the bookshelf.

Jung actually predicted that the sound would happen again, and sure enough, they heard another loud crack.

If we consider chemistry to be a science, then psychology should fall under that same umbrella too.
But then again, maybe I'm wrong about that.

Brenda Turner said:Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.

Now, guess who first coined that phrase...?

It’s not about science. It’s about technology. Clarke's Law.

nimblemarlin80 said:It isn't really about science—it's about technology. You know, Clarke's Law.

Exactly... I actually swapped that out for "science" myself (since technology is built on science, right?)

Brenda Turner said:Exactly... I made the choice to swap that out for science (since technology is built on science).

No. Technology is merely the byproduct of science.

nimblemarlin80 said:Not quite. Technology is basically just the end product of science.

Aren't we actually saying the exact same thing here—since technology relies on science, there's no tech without the science behind it, right?

Brenda Turner said:Aren't your claim and mine essentially the same thing? (Technology implies science, so without science, you don't have technology.)

To an extent, sure. But look at it this way—if we shift the focus toward how things actually function, science is the core driver. However, technology is what performs the "magic" for the layman. Science itself isn't magical; it just methodically strips away the mystery by explaining causes. It’s the finished product of technology that leaves an uninitiated observer baffled.

nimblemarlin80 said:It’s a bit of both—really. If you change the laws, it feels like science is the star of the show, but let's be honest, to anyone who isn't an expert, technology is what actually looks like magic. Science itself? Not so much, since its whole purpose is to slowly peel back the layers of how things work. It's the finished tech that really leaves people staring in wonder.

So true!

If we’re going to claim that psychology is an actual science and that Carl Gustav Jung was a legitimate scientist,
then I can't help but wonder why so many people still struggle to wrap their heads around his theories—especially when it comes to the idea that there might actually be some kind of connection between the mind and physical matter.

Drew Reed6,

1) Modern psychology doesn't really have much to do with Jung. That doesn't take away from his massive contribution to Western thought—not by a long shot—but calling him a "scientist" in the strictest, most modern sense of the word feels like a bit of a stretch.

2) The whole mind-matter connection? Isn't that just common sense at this point? I'm curious why we give Jung such a special spotlight in that conversation.

Drew Reed6 said:The year was 1909.

Jung and Freud were actually friends back then... close, even.

Supposedly, Freud was lecturing Jung about looking into spirituality, warning him not to get bogged down in some "dark sludge of the occult"... and Jung? He felt this sudden, sharp chill deep in his gut. Right then, both of them heard this massive, sudden bang coming from the direction of the bookshelf.

Jung predicted the noise would happen again... and sure enough, they heard that loud crack once more.

See, that was over a hundred years ago!!!!!!🙄

Look, I hate to be the one to burst anyone's bubble here, but psychology is a legitimate science because it has a clearly defined field of study and its own rigorous methodology.
Every psychological experiment out there is subject to replication and error just as much as any other hard science you can think of.
Based on how we define science today—at least according to my understanding—psychology fits the bill perfectly. Honestly, what some random person said or thinks doesn't really matter. Just like how chemistry eventually emerged from the mess of alchemy, psychology evolved from studying the occult.
For crying out loud, just think scientifically. How are you supposed to know for sure if a spark in a furnace is actually linked to a crack? You use the scientific method. You test it, prove it isn't, and then that's that. That’s basically the core scientific principle, rather than just lazily dismissing something as occultism...

As far as psychology goes, I honestly feel like it belongs more in the realm of the hard sciences than tucked away under philosophy... just my two cents, anyway!

Yeah. Unlike theology 😁