Is psychology actually a science?

This is something I’ve been wrestling with for a long time.
I think the answer is both yes and no.

If you're looking strictly at the statistics, then sure, it counts. But if we're diving deep into psychology—specifically Analytical Psychology—it doesn't quite qualify as a pure science. As far as I know, things like dreams and visions haven't gained official scientific recognition yet.

It’s strange, though, considering how much they actually contribute to mental health.

Carl Jung was almost like a shaman—blending medicine, psychology, mythology, and even extrasensory stuff... but I won't go there.

One thing I am curious about, though, is psychological testing.
There is no way these tests can be 100% accurate; honestly, they aren't even 70% reliable because a human being isn't a machine where you can just plug in specific measurements and parameters.
So, should we even trust these tests or base any kind of statistical data on them?

In math, 2+2 always equals 4. If you tried to apply that same logic to psychology, 2+2 could be 3, or 10, or 9, or 7.8, or 10,000... anything goes.

Come on, let's get a real discussion going. Give me some explanations.

👍

Based on what Bradley Fisher20 is saying, Carl Jung would never have been considered a psychologist in the modern sense. Psychology is defined as a science, "unlike theology," whereas Carl Jung inextricably linked psychology to the human Soul, the Spirit, and our inherent need or dependency on the Divine—essentially religion.

I’m telling you right now, I am 100% certain that PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE!

And honestly, nobody can even prove that 🙂

Hmmmmm... whether psychology actually qualifies as a science is a bit of a debatable topic, isn't it?
I feel pretty certain about one thing, though: you just can't learn how to be a psychologist or a therapist through a textbook. You either have that innate intuition from birth, or you don't.
Because of that, I honestly think most formal psychology courses end up being quite useless. We would all probably learn much more effectively by simply studying one another—really diving into self-discovery, constantly analyzing our own behaviors, and working to better ourselves.
If everyone actually did that—if we were all truly honest and approached it the right way—we wouldn't even need books or any of those "artificial" academic teachings!

Gary Cooper11 said:Hmmmmm... whether psychology actually qualifies as a science is a bit of a debatable topic, isn't it?
I feel pretty certain about one thing, though: you just can't learn how to be a psychologist or a therapist through a textbook. You either have that innate intuition from birth, or you don't.
Because of that, I honestly think most formal psychology courses end up being quite useless. We would all probably learn much more effectively by simply studying one another—really diving into self-discovery, constantly analyzing our own behaviors, and working to better ourselves.
If everyone actually did that—if we were all truly honest and approached it the right way—we wouldn't even need books or any of those "artificial" academic teachings!

man, you really haven't done your homework, have you? 😲

I mean, look, almost anything can be treated as a science these days—you could technically have a science dedicated to studying internet forums 🙄 so yeah, psychology might be a science, but it isn't really a social science 👎

Psychology finds its roots at the intersection of physiology and philosophy. Wilhelm Wundt, who established the very first psychology lab, was a physiologist, much like Hermann von Helmholtz. Gustav Fechner was a physicist by trade. William James studied physiology but earned his fame as a philosopher. Ivan Pavlov was also a physiologist.
The second pillar of psychology is medicine. Sigmund Freud and most of his followers came from medical backgrounds.
Even today, you can feel this fundamental split between those two origins.
Unfortunately, the figures coming from the medical side tend to be much more influential and widely recognized. Because of that, most people still conflate psychology with psychiatry and psychopathology.
After all, how many people have actually heard of Wilhelm Wundt, Jean Piaget, Alexander Luria, B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, Leon Festinger, or Hans Eysenck? They are highly respected within the field and contributed significantly to our understanding of behavior, yet their names rarely ring a bell for the public. On the other hand, you could find almost any educated person who hasn't at least heard of Sigmund Freud. It isn't surprising then that the general public lacks a true grasp of what psychology actually entails.
You see this reflected in the discussion topics on this subforum as well. Discussions regarding psychopathology vastly outnumber threads about, say, memory mechanisms—if such threads even exist.
I understand the tendency, though. It’s just like an automotive forum where you rarely see deep dives into internal combustion principles. Instead, people want to argue over which car is better, how to fix a specific model, or which mechanic to trust. This forum operates under the exact same logic.

Richard Howard2 said: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.

I have to disagree; psychology isn't really a social science. To me, it functions much more like a pure natural science, similar to how we approach physics or mathematics.

Sigmund Freud feels exotic, almost mystical—like you’re stepping into this deep, mysterious, romanticized version of the unconscious. I suppose that’s why psychiatrists often seem more "in demand" than psychologists, who tend to be much more blunt, telling you things like: the world is black and white, just change your behavior, toughen up, get a grip, it's all on you rather than being inside you.
Academic psychology is constantly at odds with psychoanalytic theory; they dismiss it as unscientific because you can't run "experiments" on it using the same rigid protocols you'd use in a physics lab.

Psychoanalytic psychotherapy aims for a fundamental structural shift in personality—which is why it demands "more time"—as opposed to that "simple" 😁 behavioral modification that mainstream psychology chases.

Gary Cooper11 said:Hmmmmm... whether psychology actually qualifies as a science is a bit of a debatable topic, isn't it?
I feel pretty certain about one thing, though: you just can't learn how to be a psychologist or a therapist through a textbook. You either have that innate intuition from birth, or you don't.
Because of that, I honestly think most formal psychology courses end up being quite useless. We would all probably learn much more effectively by simply studying one another—really diving into self-discovery, constantly analyzing our own behaviors, and working to better ourselves.
If everyone actually did that—if we were all truly honest and approached it the right way—we wouldn't even need books or any of those "artificial" academic teachings!

😲
Dammit! You really should have mentioned that BEFORE I signed up for my degree!

I mean, honestly... 🙄 😵

Besides, a relatively small percentage of people who graduate with a psychology degree actually do what the general public assumes they do—"helping" people or practicing therapy. Depending on their interests, plenty of people go into research, data analysis, organizational psychology, cognitive studies... The profession isn't just clinical psychology, and certainly, not every psychologist is a therapist, counselor, or "helper."

Gerald Rivera60 said:Psychology finds its roots at the intersection of physiology and philosophy. Wilhelm Wundt, who established the very first psychology lab, was a physiologist, much like Hermann von Helmholtz. Gustav Fechner was a physicist by trade. William James studied physiology but earned his fame as a philosopher. Ivan Pavlov was also a physiologist.
The second pillar of psychology is medicine. Sigmund Freud and most of his followers came from medical backgrounds.
Even today, you can feel this fundamental split between those two origins.
Unfortunately, the figures coming from the medical side tend to be much more influential and widely recognized. Because of that, most people still conflate psychology with psychiatry and psychopathology.
After all, how many people have actually heard of Wilhelm Wundt, Jean Piaget, Alexander Luria, B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, Leon Festinger, or Hans Eysenck? They are highly respected within the field and contributed significantly to our understanding of behavior, yet their names rarely ring a bell for the public. On the other hand, you could find almost any educated person who hasn't at least heard of Sigmund Freud. It isn't surprising then that the general public lacks a true grasp of what psychology actually entails.
You see this reflected in the discussion topics on this subforum as well. Discussions regarding psychopathology vastly outnumber threads about, say, memory mechanisms—if such threads even exist.
I understand the tendency, though. It’s just like an automotive forum where you rarely see deep dives into internal combustion principles. Instead, people want to argue over which car is better, how to fix a specific model, or which mechanic to trust. This forum operates under the exact same logic.

I couldn't agree more.

And one must give credit where it's due regarding Freud... it's a well-accepted notion that much of modern psychology emerged specifically as a reaction against Freudianism, stretching from behaviorism onward. In a sense, without Freud, modern psychology wouldn't even exist as we know it. Furthermore, "modern" psychiatry remains stubbornly tethered to psychoanalysis... 🙄 , but since we are discussing psychology specifically, let's not drift off into that particular rabbit hole just yet.

Drew Reed6 said: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.

Just because it *feels* that way to you doesn't make it a reality. Even if we concede that certain topics touch upon those fringes, it doesn't strip the field of its scientific status. Psychology is a science, plain and simple.
Don't let the clutter fool you. You see all sorts of nonsense being shoved under the "psychology" umbrella here simply because people don't know where else to put it. When they lack a proper category, they just dump everything into psychology or philosophy. It isn't necessarily wrong, but it certainly creates a mess.

I’d argue physics actually tackles these kinds of questions more often than scientific psychology does...
I don't see what's mystical or occult about, say, uncovering the mechanics of long-term memory, social facilitation, or the personality differences between two distinct groups of people.

Jeffrey White3 said:😲
Dammit! You really should have mentioned that BEFORE I signed up for my degree!

I mean, honestly... 🙄 😵

Besides, a relatively small percentage of people who graduate with a psychology degree actually do what the general public assumes they do—"helping" people or practicing therapy. Depending on their interests, plenty of people go into research, data analysis, organizational psychology, cognitive studies... The profession isn't just clinical psychology, and certainly, not every psychologist is a therapist, counselor, or "helper."

Yeah, sure... especially those who don't have enough cash, connections, or heaven knows what else to open up their own private practice... because please... tell me, what other reason would someone have to avoid practicing their profession if they went through the trouble of getting the degree in the first place? What else would cause that kind of aversion?
And one more question... on what basis are you even going to conduct scientific research if you aren't involved in practical application?
And at the end of the day... everything you listed requires actual talent!!!
I'm sticking to my guns: you really have to be born with a calling for psychology!

Gary Cooper11 said:Yeah, sure... especially those who don't have enough cash, connections, or heaven knows what else to open up their own private practice... because please... tell me, what other reason would someone have to avoid practicing their profession if they went through the trouble of getting the degree in the first place? What else would cause that kind of aversion?
And one more question... on what basis are you even going to conduct scientific research if you aren't involved in practical application?
And at the end of the day... everything you listed requires actual talent!!!
I'm sticking to my guns: you really have to be born with a calling for psychology!

The smartest move would be to head over to Wikipedia, type in "psychology," and actually learn what it is.

Gary Cooper11 said:Yeah, sure... especially those who don't have enough cash, connections, or heaven knows what else to open up their own private practice... because please... tell me, what other reason would someone have to avoid practicing their profession if they went through the trouble of getting the degree in the first place? What else would cause that kind of aversion?
And one more question... on what basis are you even going to conduct scientific research if you aren't involved in practical application?
And at the end of the day... everything you listed requires actual talent!!!
I'm sticking to my guns: you really have to be born with a calling for psychology!

It’s as simple as this: I have zero interest in treating people with personality disorders, yet I am fascinated by the neurophysiological mechanisms behind behavior and cognition.
Or maybe I don't care for working in an HR department at a big corporation, but I'm deeply interested in how attitudes are acquired and shifted.
Maybe I have no desire to work in a school system, but I want to uncover the mechanics of how autobiographical memory is formed. And so on.
The point is, I don't care about "fixing" people; I care about understanding them—and myself.
That is why I have no interest in traditional practice, particularly within a clinical or similar setting.

Gerald Rivera60 said:It’s as simple as this: I have zero interest in treating people with personality disorders, yet I am fascinated by the neurophysiological mechanisms behind behavior and cognition.
Or maybe I don't care for working in an HR department at a big corporation, but I'm deeply interested in how attitudes are acquired and shifted.
Maybe I have no desire to work in a school system, but I want to uncover the mechanics of how autobiographical memory is formed. And so on.
The point is, I don't care about "fixing" people; I care about understanding them—and myself.
That is why I have no interest in traditional practice, particularly within a clinical or similar setting.

Goodness gracious, people, why is it so hard to see what I'm trying to get at here?
Let's try to simplify this... everything you mentioned is fine, okay... but do you honestly think I wouldn't find these things interesting if I didn't have an "open channel" in my brain for perceiving complex situations, thoughts, and whatnot? Do you think I wouldn't be able to analyze, learn, and truly grasp the principles upon which the human psyche operates? Or that I wouldn't be able to realistically view situations from multiple angles and use that insight to reach valid conclusions that serve me both professionally and personally?
Do you seriously believe you can learn all of that just by reading textbooks?
And regarding personal inclinations... and the fact that I would always choose to work with individuals struggling with various psychological disorders... look, we aren't going to debate whether we agree or not. My perspective is simply this: if someone possesses the ability or the knowledge regarding how things function, and they have the opportunity to help someone else, why wouldn't they do it?
Isn't it a bit selfish to just remain a passive observer? Or is it perhaps a matter of lacking self-confidence? At the end of the day, you learn so much from those people, right? So, what is the actual purpose of the knowledge you've acquired if you don't use it?
But hey, at the end of the day, it's a matter of personal choice what you decide to do with your life... so, this is JUST my opinion!

Gary Cooper11 said:Goodness gracious, people, why is it so hard to see what I'm trying to get at here?
Let's try to simplify this... everything you mentioned is fine, okay... but do you honestly think I wouldn't find these things interesting if I didn't have an "open channel" in my brain for perceiving complex situations, thoughts, and whatnot? Do you think I wouldn't be able to analyze, learn, and truly grasp the principles upon which the human psyche operates? Or that I wouldn't be able to realistically view situations from multiple angles and use that insight to reach valid conclusions that serve me both professionally and personally?
Do you seriously believe you can learn all of that just by reading textbooks?
And regarding personal inclinations... and the fact that I would always choose to work with individuals struggling with various psychological disorders... look, we aren't going to debate whether we agree or not. My perspective is simply this: if someone possesses the ability or the knowledge regarding how things function, and they have the opportunity to help someone else, why wouldn't they do it?
Isn't it a bit selfish to just remain a passive observer? Or is it perhaps a matter of lacking self-confidence? At the end of the day, you learn so much from those people, right? So, what is the actual purpose of the knowledge you've acquired if you don't use it?
But hey, at the end of the day, it's a matter of personal choice what you decide to do with your life... so, this is JUST my opinion!

We're certainly trying to follow your logic...
but if we're assuming psychology requires some innate gift, wouldn't that apply to just about any other scientific field?

Before talent even enters the equation, there has to be a genuine interest in the subject matter.

You learn the methodologies through textbooks or formal schooling, much like you would in any other academic discipline,
except, of course, that your entire research focus—the thing you're applying those methods to—is the human being.

And before anyone can actually step in to help others, someone had to conduct the foundational research to reach those insights that eventually become clinical practice.
Then, of course, you have to study the efficacy of those practices to see if the methods actually work, which leads to refining them, and the cycle continues indefinitely.
etcetera etcetera.
though I suppose wanderingtinker3 could probably phrase all of this more eloquently than I can. 🙂

Drew Reed6 said: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.

Heh, you’d think we were debating high-stakes Washington politics or complex constitutional amendments... 🤣
But honestly, it really is science—fascinating, beautiful science.

Gary Cooper11 said:Goodness gracious, people, why is it so hard to see what I'm trying to get at here?
Let's try to simplify this... everything you mentioned is fine, okay... but do you honestly think I wouldn't find these things interesting if I didn't have an "open channel" in my brain for perceiving complex situations, thoughts, and whatnot? Do you think I wouldn't be able to analyze, learn, and truly grasp the principles upon which the human psyche operates? Or that I wouldn't be able to realistically view situations from multiple angles and use that insight to reach valid conclusions that serve me both professionally and personally?
Do you seriously believe you can learn all of that just by reading textbooks?
And regarding personal inclinations... and the fact that I would always choose to work with individuals struggling with various psychological disorders... look, we aren't going to debate whether we agree or not. My perspective is simply this: if someone possesses the ability or the knowledge regarding how things function, and they have the opportunity to help someone else, why wouldn't they do it?
Isn't it a bit selfish to just remain a passive observer? Or is it perhaps a matter of lacking self-confidence? At the end of the day, you learn so much from those people, right? So, what is the actual purpose of the knowledge you've acquired if you don't use it?
But hey, at the end of the day, it's a matter of personal choice what you decide to do with your life... so, this is JUST my opinion!

I don't think I need some special sensory channel to process numbers. A bit of logic, a grasp of statistics and scientific methodology, and enough psychology to know how to interpret the data should suffice. One must first establish the research problem and the hypothesis. You define the sample size carefully—not too small, or the margin of error becomes massive, but not so large that you waste resources without significantly reducing that error. And so on. Naturally, the sample depends on the subject matter; if the phenomenon being studied is universal and less susceptible to respondent bias, you can get away with a smaller sample.
In other words, you need a smaller sample to identify which brain centers activate during speech than you would to investigate the structure of attitudes.

That’s all I require.
If I'm choosing between two or three factors for phenomenon X, I'll opt for the most parsimonious solution—the simplest one, according to Occam's Razor. If a t-test shows no statistically significant difference between group X and group Y, then there likely isn't a difference in the measured variable.
Et cetera.

I am unsure how familiar you are with scientific methodology, but there isn't much room for subjectivity on the part of the researcher. Even in qualitative studies, the goal is to minimize the "personal equation" in assessment and interpretation. Ideally, multiple researchers work independently, often without even knowing one another. Frequently, the person interacting with the subjects isn't even the lead researcher; they may not even know the true objective of the study, which helps prevent unintentional influence on the participants (double-blind testing).

Here is a link regarding Research Methodology in Psychology and, as the text notes, "Understanding research methodology is fundamental to understanding psychology."

Hey, Gerald Rivera60, that last post actually does more harm than good.
Now she’ll just be even more convinced this is some kind of innate magic you have to be born with. 😁

Nina, honestly, trying to explain psychology as a science in a single post is nearly impossible. Like I said, there are great, easy-to-read articles on Wikipedia, so why not just read them? Viewing psychology as an innate talent rather than a field of study shows a real lack of understanding regarding basic scientific facts. Look, don't expect me to dive into defining every elementary term—I'd probably fail at being clear or concise myself. Honestly, my best advice is just to stick to Wikipedia.

I sent her a link to get things moving... 🤔