I think it's somewhat of an over-generalization to call all of psychology a pseudo-science.
I know plenty of individuals that would define their field of study as "psychology" but they use quantitative, objective, data in their experiments and analyses. Animal studies come to mind.
I mean, I've performed experiments where people take a blue pill, and then I ask them "How do you feel?" (among other things) every 30 min, and they give me a rating of 1-100. You could probably call that pharmacology or psychology, but the data are statistically analyzed and the experiments adhere to the scientific method that other "hard" sciences use.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
Quote:
Mufungo said: Yeah it's becoming "more" scientific, which is a good thing with respect to evidence based practice and all, but it has a very long way to go and as such I agree with DC about therapy being more of an art (greater differences in treatment effectiveness exist between therapists of the same theoretical orientation (i.e. CBT) than between groups of different theoretical orientations (i.e CBT vs interpersonal approach), even in standardised manual based treatments (Teyber & McClure, 2011)).
CBT is an interesting one because it seems that it's "success" may be more representative of the advocacy of its supporters whose research leaves me wondering whether they ever bothered to control for researcher bias. In other words, when the researcher believes in and is an advocate for the therapy they are researching, then the results suspiciously support their beliefs. The same thing is happening with ACT in the last 5 to 10 years..
As far as research aspects of psychology not related to therapy, they're very much a science and the study is performed in the same way as you'd expect from any other scientific discipline.
On a slightly different angle... Is theoretical physics a science?
Yeah, I didn't mean to make it sound as though therapy is nothing but science. Hell, Rogers was trying to make it more scientific back in the 70's but it just seemed to open more questions. Any workable line of inquiry is good for the field IMO, including the resulting EBTs. Someone is always going to be pushing for better, because nothing is even close to perfect. I spent most of my undergraduate career rallying against CBT as used for depression 
To me it seems that doors have been opened. CBT has set a sort of precedence for new therapies in the sense that they need to be compatible to experimentation to make a dent. And so as more techniques that can work within the scientific paradigm emerge, I think that effectiveness studies will start to hone in much better on the components of therapy. It just seems a much stronger base to work on what Rogers was trying to examine and I think brings great benefit to practice.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|