Is Psychology More an Art or a Science?

Therapulse.ai - The AI Scribe for Mental Health
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
G

Grenth

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
176
Reaction score
308
I'm curious about what you think about the claim that psychology as field, but particularly therapy is more an art than a science. I'm finishing up a terminal MA, but starting my PhD at a balanced program in the fall in part because the science and research aspects of psychology are what I find appealing and in my mind what really separates a trained psychology professional (MA or PhD/PsyD) from a life coach or the advice your grandma would give.

In my MA it's really been pushed to trust our guts, look at therapy as an art not a science, follow your heart etc. I can see ways this is valid. I know there is at least research that supports gut instincts to an extent, but it feels like the science aspect is neglected, at least in my current program and at the sites I've been at for internship/practicum. It's frustrating to me because many of my classmates do things like get therapy protocols off of Pinterest and can't interpret the methods sections of journal articles. One intern who got just got hired at a private practice will play chess with clients all session if he senses the client doesn't feel like working and then bills for it. Another classmate has this in her office http://www.smarttherapist.com/manifesto/

Can I expect to encounter this more an art, less a science type attitude at the PhD level? For what's it worth I did not see this in interviews which were very research focused and I really enjoyed talking to the other applicants about their lab work.
Members don't see this ad.
 
It's a science, that requires a variety of interpersonal skills and principles (which is sometimes what folks refer to when they describe therapy as an "art") in its clinical application.

Evaluating and describing ways in which the nervous system plays a role in, say, panic disorder is not an art. It's science. However, getting a patient to "buy in" to the explanations and to actively participate in the therapeutic process is an acquired and refined skill (which is the phrase I would use instead of "art").
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It is an art and a science. So is medicine; great physicians don't simply apply their knowledge base to curing their patients' illnesses. For example - diabetes management requires patient buy in, patient trust, patient taking ownership of the disease. A great physician can use the art of the encounter to achieve those things. Same thing for mental health. I use evidence-based treatments, but I also agree with that manifesto.
 
I would just add the psychology is a science, and this is not really debatable. The process of application to individual cases of psychic distress is were the "art" inevitably takes place, since the dialogue of psychotherapy is not like running and experiment. The scientific methods still should be applied to clinical work, however.

If the program advocates "going with your heart," I would have to ask them what the point of studying all the psychology in their program is about then?
 
I wish I could say your experience was unique. I've run into people like that. It's nonsense and speaks to why we run into trouble for our profession. If I was in the government, I wouldn't want to put money into training people who do that kind of thing, either.

A good synonym for "gut instinct" is "bias." A casual review of literature on topics like the reliability of clinical judgments and misuse of symptoms for diagnoses makes the problem with that pretty clear.
 
So that's insurance fraud and unethical practice... Like rei ipsa level of incompetence.

Intuition and such are almost always indicators that someone is not operating on a professional level. Try going to a stock broker and hearing things like "I just trust my intuition". Sound like incompetence? A real investor will start with such minimal stats as market map, moving averages, retracements, etc.
 
It's a science. The only people I see who refer to it seriously as an art, are people who specialize in "treatments" that have no empirical backing. Calling it an art is just a way to reduce one's cognitive dissonance. As AA has said, one can refine their skillset and application of the science, but there is no art here.
 
The way we go about collecting data, and the way we analyze said data, is def scientific. So, Psychology does follow the scientific method. Psychology is very strong methodologically. But you can be methodologically strong and still reach unimportant and irrelevant conclusions..that is where Psychology gets a bad rap.
 
psych844 said:
The way we go about collecting data, and the way we analyze said data, is def scientific. So, Psychology does follow the scientific method. Psychology is very strong methodologically. But you can be methodologically strong and still reach unimportant and irrelevant conclusions..that is where Psychology gets a bad rap.
Click to expand...

Mostly unfairly so. Last analysis I saw, we still had higher reproducibility numbers than most other branches of science. Also, importance is very subjective, not every study can be groundbreaking, and many rely on the smaller stepping stones of previous work.
 
psych844 said:
The way we go about collecting data, and the way we analyze said data, is def scientific. So, Psychology does follow the scientific method. Psychology is very strong methodologically. But you can be methodologically strong and still reach unimportant and irrelevant conclusions..that is where Psychology gets a bad rap.
Click to expand...

You're ready to read Kuhn.
 
Justanothergrad said:
I think Laudan is a good framework for psychology and these concerns as well. It answers the 'is this important' question very well, better than Kuhn does in my mind.
Click to expand...

Fair point; Kuhn just jumped to mind as a starter (I always thought it a little unfair that in grad school we read Popper but no Kuhn). You could trace backward from Kuhn too, but it's true that at some point you have to draw a line, lest you find yourself planning a thesis in philosophy rather than psychology. 🙂
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MamaPhD said:
Fair point; Kuhn just jumped to mind as a starter (I always thought it a little unfair that in grad school we read Popper but no Kuhn). You could trace backward from Kuhn too, but it's true that at some point you have to draw a line, lest you find yourself planning a thesis in philosophy rather than psychology. 🙂
Click to expand...
Oh man, Kuhn was a major part of my grad education at both my masters and doctorate (but no Popper). Kuhn even ended up being the theoretical basis for the lit review of my dissertation. I think it that Laudan is a bit more applicable in terms of what defines a unifying construct (methods over rationale for a known phenomenon). Either way, it's a real disservice for folks not to be familiar with them.
 
Is there a good book review/review of Laudan's work?
 
Justanothergrad said:
Gholston & Barker (1985) - on Kuhn is a good article that discusses and contrasts the theories. Let me know if you can't find it and i'll dig up the full citation. It was in the american psychologist.
Click to expand...
I found it..thank you! 🙂
 
Science. Science. SCIENCE!!!
When I taught intro to psychology and research methods I would be confronted by many students who have the mistaken belief that because we don't have answers to every conceivable psychological question, that somehow invalidates everything we do know. It's preposterous. The application of any technique can involve artistry whether it is welding or psychotherapy or biochemistry. Artistry and science are not mutually exclusive concepts.
 
smalltownpsych said:
Science. Science. SCIENCE!!!
When I taught intro to psychology and research methods I would be confronted by many students who have the mistaken belief that because we don't have answers to every conceivable psychological question, that somehow invalidates everything we do know. It's preposterous. The application of any technique can involve artistry whether it is welding or psychotherapy or biochemistry. Artistry and science are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that science for most people is a man in a lab coat doing some experiment with chemicals, or non-human subjects..and finding out facts or truths. There is this perception that if you work with an inanimate object or non-human subjects, you're a serious scientist. If you work with humans, well now you're just doing some guess work because humans are just too complex to understand. Related to this..the same people who's vision of a true scientist is the guy with the lab coat, are also the same people who love astronomy and see it as a hard science, but are too ignorant to realize that astronomy has no direct experiments (its all observational)..yet if you made the argument that astronomy is not less scientific because there are no direct experiments, they would buy it because we are dealing with observations of a non-human nature. It's ok to observe nature, animals, and planets...but observing human beings and making conclusions..sacrilege!!
 
psych844 said:
Part of the problem is that science for most people is a man in a lab coat doing some experiment with chemicals, or non-human subjects..and finding out facts or truths. There is this perception that if you work with an inanimate object or non-human subjects, you're a serious scientist. If you work with humans, well now you're just doing some guess work because humans are just too complex to understand. Related to this..the same people who's vision of a true scientist is the guy with the lab coat, are also the same people who love astronomy and see it as a hard science, but are too ignorant to realize that astronomy has no direct experiments (its all observational)..yet if you made the argument that astronomy is not less scientific because there are no direct experiments, they would buy it because we are dealing with observations of a non-human nature. It's ok to observe nature, animals, and planets...but observing human beings and making conclusions..sacrilege!!
Click to expand...
Like some of my patients (and my wife for that matter) are fond of saying, "people are stupid". 🙂 What they usually mean by that is that people tend to rely on flawed logic as you so aptly pointed out. That's why Meehl no longer attends case conferences 'cause mental health professionals are quite often stupid people too!
 
smalltownpsych said:
That's why Meehl no longer attends case conferences 'cause mental health professionals are quite often stupid people too!
Click to expand...

Well, currently, Meehl does not attend case conference because he is dead.
 
psych844 said:
Part of the problem is that science for most people is a man in a lab coat doing some experiment with chemicals, or non-human subjects..and finding out facts or truths. There is this perception that if you work with an inanimate object or non-human subjects, you're a serious scientist. If you work with humans, well now you're just doing some guess work because humans are just too complex to understand. Related to this..the same people who's vision of a true scientist is the guy with the lab coat, are also the same people who love astronomy and see it as a hard science, but are too ignorant to realize that astronomy has no direct experiments (its all observational)..yet if you made the argument that astronomy is not less scientific because there are no direct experiments, they would buy it because we are dealing with observations of a non-human nature. It's ok to observe nature, animals, and planets...but observing human beings and making conclusions..sacrilege!!
Click to expand...

 
sounds like someone is asking for homework help.
 
shooter said:
sounds like someone is asking for homework help.
Click to expand...
I've finished all my course work for my MA, except one assignment (a presentation on adolescent group therapy outcomes) 😉 So this is just me looking for moral support/venting. I can see how it might look like that though.

To everyone else thank you, I wish I could print this thread and distribute it in my MA program. I am squarely of the opinion it is a science and have been. My undergrad background is in biology and I always see psychology through that lens to an extent. I can't wait to start my PhD program and get to study under and with scientists like you all.
 
Grenth said:
I can see how it might look like that though.
Click to expand...

Homework help? Does not look like that to me. To me it looks like somebody is learning about the dynamics of the field, gathering information, working toward forming your on opinions....
I also think it is a topic many of us have encountered so is a valid topic.
 
Wendi22 said:
Homework help? Does not look like that to me. To me it looks like somebody is learning about the dynamics of the field, gathering information, working toward forming your on opinions....
I also think it is a topic many of us have encountered so is a valid topic.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I was trying to not come across as defensive, so that's why I said I could how it might sound that way.
I was glad to get so many helpful responses from everyone else though.
 
Justanothergrad said:
Gholston & Barker (1985) - on Kuhn is a good article that discusses and contrasts the theories. Let me know if you can't find it and i'll dig up the full citation. It was in the american psychologist.
Click to expand...


Finally have some time to go over this article. I'm trying to make sense of it with basically an undergrad Psych education. Can anybody do a more layman's translation of the bolded parts? The rest I understand.

"They test the theory by attempting to reject a point-null hypothesis, which is the logical complement of the theoretical prediction. This, argued Meehl, leads to the paradox that in psychology, increased measurement precision makes it easier for the theory to pass the test, whereas in physics it increases the severity of the test, as presumably it should. The tests to which theories in psychology are subjected, wrote Meehl, are so easy that passing them is "only an extremely weak corroboration of any substantive theory" (Meehl, 1967, p. 111). This problem is compounded, according to Meehl, by the practice of evaluating a theory by "counting noses," that is, comparing the number of experimental 'confirmations' to the number of 'refutations' of the theory under test (p. 112). This, said Meehl, is scientifically preposterous, because, as deductive logic dictates, refutations are much more critical to the validity of a theory than confirmations. An additional problem is that the typical theory in psychology is only loosely associated, through its "auxiliary hypotheses," to its operations in the experiment. This, according to Meehl, means that the results of the experimental test, which is absurdly easy to begin with, have no real impact on the substantive theory itself. It also leads to excessive ad hoc theorizing in which the auxiliary hypotheses are challenged and tested repeatedly while the substantive theory is left behind, never subjected to a risk of refutation."
Click to expand...
 
psych844 said:
An additional problem is that the typical theory in psychology is only loosely associated, through its "auxiliary hypotheses," to its operations in the experiment. This, according to Meehl, means that the results of the experimental test, which is absurdly easy to begin with, have no real impact on the substantive theory itself.
Click to expand...
My understanding, may be wrong.

My theory is that too much sun makes psychologists lazy. To test my theory, I randomly send some psychologists to San Diego and some to Seattle. After a year, I measure their laziness. In this case, I find that the San Diego psychologists score lower on the measure than the Seattle psychologists. The randomization and the laziness test are the experiment. The "auxiliary hypothesis" is that there is more sun in San Diego than Seattle and that this difference will lead to laziness. As opposed the the original hypothesis. This experiment supports the original hypothesis but the quote is saying that these results - alone - are weak in supporting the substantive theory itself.
 
As a professor once stated. Some people are born with an innate skill to listen, support, and help others as well as the ability to pick up on non-verbal and verbal interactions. Psychologists are professionals who scientifically understand what those skills are and can apply them knowingly.

Similarly some artists can paint well but a professional artist understands why the use of a certain color evokes emotion and depth in a particular painting.

So is there an art to helping others absolutely, but psychologists understand that art on a scientific level.
 
DynamicDidactic said:
My understanding, may be wrong.

My theory is that too much sun makes psychologists lazy. To test my theory, I randomly send some psychologists to San Diego and some to Seattle. After a year, I measure their laziness. In this case, I find that the San Diego psychologists score lower on the measure than the Seattle psychologists. The randomization and the laziness test are the experiment. The "auxiliary hypothesis" is that there is more sun in San Diego than Seattle and that this difference will lead to laziness. As opposed the the original hypothesis. This experiment supports the original hypothesis but the quote is saying that these results - alone - are weak in supporting the substantive theory itself.
Click to expand...

That seems to be true based on doing a bit more reading.

Reading more Meehl. (different article) Man, he is fascinating to read.

His point in this article I'm reading (though may be misinterpreting this part) is that the probability of getting a significant test is about 50%, (with perfect power) as # of observations, increased precision, greater sensitivity in logical structure of experiment increase..regardless if the theory has any merit.

Can anyone clarify if he means this only for directional tests? And are directional tests more common than two-tail?
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, psychology is most definitely a science. Counseling and Art therapy seem more like art to me.
 
Justanothergrad said:
How do you conceptualize counseling to be different from psychology?
Click to expand...

Alot of counseling practice seems to be more geared towards using not only psychotherapy but other forms of therapies such as art therapy and music therapy while Psychologists with doctorates are trained to not only used evidence based practices such as CBT but are also trained in research methods, psychopathology and to a limited extent biology. So I believe that counseling can be classified more as a art than a science.
 
But then again I am just a psych major turned history major so I would love to hear your opinion about how counseling is similar to psychology unless you are counting counseling psychology with counseling
 
PsychMajorUndergrad18 said:
But then again I am just a psych major turned history major so I would love to hear your opinion about how counseling is similar to psychology unless you are counting counseling psychology with counseling
Click to expand...
There are definitely "counseling" practices in use that are not based on scientific practices, no doubt.. they hurt my head a little bit to even think about.I generally think of counseling/psychotherapy in two lines "empirically supported and evidenced-based" and "utter horse droppings [not a technical term]". No matter if the first description is identified in terms of division 12 criteria for EST or division 17 criteria (e.g., Chambless & Hollon, 1996(?), etc), the emphasis has to be on the practice being supported by evidence. Art /can/ be part of a therapeutic process, but if you rely solely on that as the mechanism of change there is a problem. Psychology tends to emphasize the former more than some other professions, although I think there is a general movement towards greater evidenced-based practice as a whole. Some fields (and some people within fields) are also moving more quickly that way.

The issue, with respect to psychology, counseling is considered a subdiscipline within the field as is clinical.. and those two subfields are truly inseparable in my mind. Thus, saying 'counseling' could refer to a number of things.
 
Justanothergrad said:
There are definitely "counseling" practices in use that are not based on scientific practices, no doubt.. they hurt my head a little bit to even think about.I generally think of counseling/psychotherapy in two lines "empirically supported and evidenced-based" and "utter horse droppings [not a technical term]". No matter if the first description is identified in terms of division 12 criteria for EST or division 17 criteria (e.g., Chambless & Hollon, 1996(?), etc), the emphasis has to be on the practice being supported by evidence. Art /can/ be part of a therapeutic process, but if you rely solely on that as the mechanism of change there is a problem. Psychology tends to emphasize the former more than some other professions, although I think there is a general movement towards greater evidenced-based practice as a whole. Some fields (and some people within fields) are also moving more quickly that way.

The issue, with respect to psychology, counseling is considered a subdiscipline within the field as is clinical.. and those two subfields are truly inseparable in my mind. Thus, saying 'counseling' could refer to a number of things.
Click to expand...

When I think of counseling I seem to think of Masters-level counseling. You are right that clinical and counseling psych are inseparable in that nowadays there really isn't that much of a difference except for scope of research and job opportunities. And I do agree with your description of the counselor horror stories.
 
Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of masters-level folks providing evidence-based therapies. Indeed, if you search threads on here, you'll see posts by numerous psychologists stating that some of the best therapists they know are masters-level providers. It's anecdotal, sure, but it's something.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of masters-level folks providing evidence-based therapies. Indeed, if you search threads on here, you'll see posts by numerous psychologists stating that some of the best therapists they know are masters-level providers. It's anecdotal, sure, but it's something.
Click to expand...

I'll need to see a citation, sir.
 
psych844 said:
I'll need to see a citation, sir.
Click to expand...

#citationpolice just kidding.

AcronymAllergy said:
Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of masters-level folks providing evidence-based therapies. Indeed, if you search threads on here, you'll see posts by numerous psychologists stating that some of the best therapists they know are masters-level providers. It's anecdotal, sure, but it's something.
Click to expand...

Ancedotes are good at conveying info tho. Peter Ubel did a great deal of research on ancedotes.
 
psych844 said:
I'll need to see a citation, sir.
Click to expand...

I could probably find a previous post on here to cite. Although then I'd need to dust off my APA style manual and find out how to cite posts in an online forum.

Full disclosure: I just did a very quick search for articles on rates of EBP use. I was not particularly successful. My Google skills apparently need more tweaking.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I could probably find a previous post on here to cite. Although then I'd need to dust off my APA style manual and find out how to cite posts in an online forum.

Full disclosure: I just did a very quick search for articles on rates of EBP use. I was not particularly successful. My Google skills apparently need more tweaking.
Click to expand...

AA,

come to the young side, we have awesome google skills 😉
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I could probably find a previous post on here to cite. Although then I'd need to dust off my APA style manual and find out how to cite posts in an online forum.
Click to expand...
I know that I have said it before and it is evidence that some MA level therapists can provide great treatment. I know because I had several of them working for me. I was also commenting on how these same therapists would rely on me for my expertise as a psychologist when it came to law and ethics, conceptualizing, diagnosis, clinical supervision, and research.
 
cara susanna said:
If taking a philosophy of science class taught me anything, it's that practically nothing qualifies as a real science.
Click to expand...
I took one of those as well. I did a paper on Popper.

The thing I took out of the class more generally was what I posted earlier in this thread.. few people realize that some science is mostly experimental , while others is purely observational, while others are a mix..and that the manner in which we attain it has little to do with how "hard" of a science it is.

What I took from it more specifically..that falsification is ideal, and testability...and that if you're relying on accumulation of data (which is less ideal)..at least make it a risky prediction..go against the grain and predict something that few others are thinking about.
 
cara susanna said:
If taking a philosophy of science class taught me anything, it's that practically nothing qualifies as a real science.
Click to expand...
The more philosophy courses that I took, the more I realized that there really is nothing that qualifies as anything. I remember one philosophy class where we were talking about cogito ergo sum as being the conclusion that the only thing that is verifiable is that because I think, I exist or something to that effect. Then the next week we learned that wasn't really true either so in actuality, I don't exist either. 😱
 
I honestly felt like much of it was philosophers poking holes from their ivory tower, without a lot of helpful suggestions for those of us in the trenches.

I do like a lot of what they said, though. Especially Popper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Duquesne University Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
5
Views
940
sb1129
S
J
PhD/PsyD USUHS Clinical Psychology 2026
Replies
0
Views
452
JRM96
J
R
Psychology Internship Interview Questions
Replies
3
Views
3K
MCParent
MCParent
hopeful Future Doctor
I'm not sure which field of Psychology is right for me
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mind_Brain Mom
Mind_Brain Mom
Dobbyisfree
Hawaii psychology licensure question
Replies
6
Views
909
Dobbyisfree
Dobbyisfree
Top