psycholgy¦philoshpy < The mix!?

[Howie]

Should these two mix and be rendered? Psychology seems to me that the studies are factual in nature, ( the nature of psychology ) more of a science. I can't see how one can deny that we know all we should about the topic. But it falls under false pretense, when and how it is used. Used to treat physiological problems. When the human psyche gets involved, we make many changes as a society. We become more politically correct, draw guidelines ~that maybe should not be there? I do understand that we have to treat it more delicately when humans are involved. Philosophy (as one persons) to me is a lot like, belief or a biased. How do you not mix the two as a psychologist? You have to go strictly by the book. correct? This limits your reasoning and ability to possibly use philosophy as a means of higher learning. At the same time, I realize why. So that is the quandary. I am not well versed in either, So I would like to here others opinions on the issue.

[pj]

Psychology is really a "soft science." (At one time in my twisted past, I had set out to become a psychologist. I'm no expert, but I have considerable time invested in the study.) What I mean by "soft science" is that there is little empirical evidence to back up the conclusions. There are, however, lots of clinical studies pointing toward consistent conclusions. True cause-effect relationship are extremely difficult to establish with psychology. The practice of it is certainly more of an art than, say, surgery. Philosophy is the science of thought and perception. There is nothing we humans do that does not fall under the blanket of philosophy. In that sense, psychology is already a subset of philosophy. Psychology can certainly be studied philosophically - it is done all the time. Mixing and rendering? No. Philosophy is on a MUCH higher plane than psychology. I think you might be confusing the idea of "personal philosophy", which is more of a belief system, with the more formal and structured study of Philosophy.

[Howie]

Psychology is really a "soft science." (At one time in my twisted past, I had set out to become a psychologist. I'm no expert, but I have considerable time invested in the study.) What I mean by "soft science" is that there is little empirical evidence to back up the conclusions. There are, however, lots of clinical studies pointing toward consistent conclusions. True cause-effect relationship are extremely difficult to establish with psychology. The practice of it is certainly more of an art than, say, surgery. Philosophy is the science of thought and perception. There is nothing we humans do that does not fall under the blanket of philosophy. In that sense, psychology is already a subset of philosophy. Psychology can certainly be studied philosophically - it is done all the time. Mixing and rendering? No. Philosophy is on a MUCH higher plane than psychology. I think you might be confusing the idea of "personal philosophy", which is more of a belief system, with the more formal and structured study of Philosophy. Yes, I see what you are saying. So it happens yet we can't say it happen? Much like the political correctness that I spoke of. Do you mean it does not get rendered, or should not? Let's use an example: One who is seeing a psychologist, one who has a background in the science of the mind -I think. He or she has the ability to administer mind altering drugs and more pertinent to this conversation, administer their knowledge as a psychologist AND portray their own views as a philosopher. Hence mixing the two.

[Carôusoul]

Yes, I see what you are saying. So it happens yet we can't say it happen? Much like the political correctness that I spoke of. Do you mean it does not get rendered, or should not? Let's use an example: One who is seeing a psychologist, one who has a background in the science of the mind -I think. He or she has the ability to administer mind altering drugs and more pertinent to this conversation, administer their knowledge as a psychologist AND portray their own views as a philosopher. Hence mixing the two. How are you defining philosophy here, because it seems like your treating it slightly oddly. Call me stupid, but I don't totally see where philosophy comes into the example. Is that like, the psychologist is presenting an existentialist argument casually whilst administering drugs? I doon't quite understand. Philosophy is a MASSIVE subject stretching from the nature of reality to basic ethics.

[O'nus]

Yes, I see what you are saying. So it happens yet we can't say it happen? Much like the political correctness that I spoke of. Do you mean it does not get rendered, or should not? Let's use an example: One who is seeing a psychologist, one who has a background in the science of the mind -I think. He or she has the ability to administer mind altering drugs and more pertinent to this conversation, administer their knowledge as a psychologist AND portray their own views as a philosopher. Hence mixing the two. In the academic world, philosophy is viewed as the journey to knowledge, discourse, understanding, etc. Every person will commit to philosophy before commiting to a research project or hypothesis. Here is how the two mix: - I wonder why we think in a certain way - I develop a cogent hypothesis (The above can be considered philosophy) - Testing the above through empirical means (The above is what dictates a label such as psychology, chemistry, etc.) What I find annoying in the psychology field is when you say something like, "I wonder why people do X" and then they say, "Well because of y as proven by p". Or something like, "Man I really hate it when X does this" and they respond with, "Well you know that is just a psychological complex Y". No normal conversation can take place. Furthermore, when I try to have purely philosophical conversations with people, I am usually resisted with the psychology of religion as reasoning to not question our existance. That just aggravates me. We can look at our reasons why we ask questions.. but that does not mean we have to stop asking them. Just because you understand somethings nature does not mean you need to discard it. ~

[Howie]

How are you defining philosophy here, because it seems like your treating it slightly oddly. Call me stupid, but I don't totally see where philosophy comes into the example. Is that like, the psychologist is presenting an existentialist argument casually whilst administering drugs? I doon't quite understand. Philosophy is a MASSIVE subject stretching from the nature of reality to basic ethics. They say, We are all philosophers ~ really meaning, we all have our own opinion of our own truths. With that said, that in itself implies that we relay our belief systems on others. We are all certainly not psychologists. But how does this science remain in an objective arena? philosophy is massive, endless. psychiatry is, although we are not close to seeing it. Therefore combing the two can have it's advantages and can also have it's dangers I think.

[Carôusoul]

They say, We are all philosophers ~ really meaning, we all have our own opinion of our own truths. With that said, that in itself implies that we relay our belief systems on others. We are all certainly not psychologists. But how does this science remain in an objective arena? philosophy is massive, endless. psychiatry is, although we are not close to seeing it. Therefore combing the two can have it's advantages and can also have it's dangers I think. Alright, I get your point, but I think the problem is the interpretation of the word philosophy. I take it as the subject regarding the nature of existence etc; and the study of truth; but I realise that it can also mean a personal life philosophy; etc. I stand by my point that philosophy is the greater subject. Psychiatry; although very interesting, explores the human mind solely; which is also a very large part of philosophy [psychology etc] But I think in general although the two can overlap, Philosophy is by far the more wide scale subject. This may change, but as it stands with our knowledge of the Human mind; I think they are rather different.

[O'nus]

Personally, I would say philosophy is in every field. You conduct philosophy before you conduct anything empirical. ie. any 'why' question can be qualified as a philosophic endeavour. ~

[Howie]

Personally, I would say philosophy is in every field. You conduct philosophy before you conduct anything empirical. ie. any 'why' question can be qualified as a philosophic endeavour. I agree Alright, I get your point, but I think the problem is the interpretation of the word philosophy. I take it as the subject regarding the nature of existence etc; and the study of truth; but I realise that it can also mean a personal life philosophy; etc. I stand by my point that philosophy is the greater subject. Psychiatry; although very interesting, explores the human mind solely; which is also a very large part of philosophy [psychology etc] But I think in general although the two can overlap, Philosophy is by far the more wide scale subject. This may change, but as it stands with our knowledge of the Human mind; I think they are rather different. I think you are missing my point all together Carôusaoul. I am not to question which is bigger or greater or nay of that. The two do overlap. Let's take another scenario that involves philosophy when it perhaps should not. ■ A judge They are to interpret the judicial system as it is in "the books." There is some room for personal judgment, pun intended. Even when there is not, we all know that biased comes into play. We all have it. It is natural, to a degree. Back to psychology. Is because the study of the mind so up in the air still, leave it open for philosophical views to be implied?