Is psychology a science after all?

Psychology is like the brother of science, but it is not a father-son relationship, but it often makes people who don't study carefully mistakenly think that psychology is unscientific. Academic history is hard to blame for this. In fact, in the long history, academics were not so detailed at first. Philosophy was first put forward, and even later science was separated from philosophy. In ancient Greece, people hoped that there was a kind of learning that could explain the mechanism and principle of everything. In the early days, everyone hoped to have a whole and complete thing to understand and interpret everything in the world in his childhood memory. This period is about 3 years old, which is an animist period. At this point, not only individuals, but also human childhood. The important things come first. Although this paper is from the perspective of psychology, to understand the relationship, we must first explain the latter-science. I don't know what science is because I don't know science itself; Without understanding the meaning of science, it is impossible to distinguish between science and non-science; If you don't understand the way of science, you can't master and apply science; Although we talk about science almost often now, we also use the word science in our daily life. So, do you understand the word science? The answer is no, to be honest, many people don't understand it, because so far, scientists themselves (including authors) and other disciplines have tried to define science in essence, but they have not been very successful. In other words, if someone can tell you that science is precisely defined now, you can understand it as nonsense almost immediately. At present, it can only be generally said that science is a branch knowledge system that reflects the objective laws of nature, society and thinking, and refers to the application of universal truths or theorems that have been discovered, accumulated and understood, and have been systematized and formulated. Although this definition is not successful, it inevitably has many explanations. There are some political factors and some humanistic views in the complicated explanations. Here, we adopt a relatively neutral statement that is recognized by the public: "Science is different from common sense at first, and science seeks order in things through classification. In addition, science tries to explain things by revealing the laws of things-French encyclopedia. It should be noted that according to the classification methods familiar to the public at present, materialistic or idealistic views are not feasible here. Because materialism advocates material first and consciousness second. Idealism, on the other hand, holds that what the heart or consciousness feels, consciousness is the first and material is the second. These two opposing views actually come from philosophical thoughts and belong to the category of epistemology. Pointing this out alone seems simple and superficial, but it is meaningful. Just can reflect on some people who insist on science and refute others' unscientific. At the same time, it is enough to subvert the materialistic ideas and scientific concepts inherent in China people's minds, including some people who have tried to claim to be scientific. At least for the time being, even feudal superstitions now appear under the mask of science, but they are redefined as feudal superstitions after being investigated and punished by the state. But when he first appeared, no one wanted to admit that he was superstitious. The result is that a white horse is not a horse and a donkey is not a donkey. First of all, the issue of universal epistemology is mentioned because materialistic thinking is too powerful in the eyes of China people. Let us reflect on what science itself is. Therefore, it is very important to define science itself. Then we can at least sum up briefly: scientists and laws should be classified and better understood. In other words, science itself is the knowledge of understanding the objective laws of things, which needs to be classified and explained to serve life. However, it is doubtful or actually arrogant to explain science in the way of philosophical epistemology, at least in the way. In other words, the function of science is to help, to think deeply, to explore life, to be familiar with science, to talk about science, and to serve your life. From the previous scientific definitions and explanations, it is not difficult to draw an inference: the materialistic or idealistic way of understanding things is actually unscientific. Because if you use the wrong method, how can you have a real close-up understanding of things? In the abstract, if we want to forcibly explain science from the materialistic point of view, we can only prove that science is forcibly proved by unscientific methods. In other words, it is to understand science itself in a non-scientific way. However, there are also some problems. Because of this, I have to ask a new question-why is everyone misunderstood? How did this mistake come about? Is the mistake inexplicable and groundless? Science and Philosophy: The answer is that this was originally a family. Now this answer is even more surprising and incredible. This is because although epistemology comes from philosophy, philosophy and science are originally a family. Generally speaking, epistemology is related to science. Epistemology belongs to the "children" who haven't grown up in the philosophical family, and science belongs to the eldest brother who has separated his family and lived alone. It is precisely because we have a bloody, tangled and lingering past that we are emotionally wrong, so it is not surprising to know that we are wrong. This smell of love and hate intertwined with fate also tells why most people generally know the truth today. If we really straighten this out, we have to talk about an unfamiliar field, academic history. Looking at the human picture, it is not difficult to find that science comes from philosophy and psychology also comes from philosophy. It can be said that philosophy is not only the predecessor of science, but also the predecessor of psychology. All this, in the whole academic history, seems so "tragic". Because the science of escaping from philosophy is not only bumpy, but also includes many discipline brothers behind it. Today we are going to discuss philosophy. At least there is a saying in the professional field that "philosophy is the mother of learning". Of course, this is something that people who like philosophy love to mention, but it does prove that at least the universal law of academic and historical development in the world is a microcosm. The earliest human study was the world, and it was about the ideas and viewpoints of holism. At this point, the thinking direction of China and the West is almost the same. Before Socrates, Greek philosophy mainly studied the origin of the universe, and later people called it "natural philosophy". Socrates thinks that it is of no practical significance to study these problems again to save the country, and instead studies human beings themselves, such as mind, soul and dialectics. Among Socrates, Plato, a student of Socrates, and Aristotle, a student of Plato, Aristotle had the most profound and extensive influence on the whole society. Aristotle showed a turning point in Greek science. Before him, scientists and philosophers tried to put forward a complete world system to explain natural phenomena. He was the last person to put forward a complete world system. After him, many scientists gave up trying to put forward a complete system and turned to study specific problems. Also because this guy is so awesome, Marx called Aristotle the most knowledgeable figure among ancient Greek philosophers, and Engels called him the ancient Hegel. His works are ancient encyclopedias, and it is said that there are 400 to 1000 books, mainly including instrumentalism, metaphysics, physics, ethics, politics, poetics and so on. This is not only disappointing future generations, but also to the extent of fainting on the spot. So there are also rumors that these things were not written by him alone, but by his students. Simply put, scientists have given up trying to cooperate with philosophy, giving up the inherent arrogance of completely explaining the world, and basically understand that studying the whole world is what philosophy loves to do, and science will go back to doing its own thing. In this way, the bridge belongs to the bridge and the road belongs to the road. Science will naturally be divided and rival. However, science is very combative, but science does not determine everything, because it is also determined by other factors. Bruno was burned to death, and science won. The battle lasted for hundreds of years. After that, many disciplines followed similar tree rings. In fact, there are many reasons why science was born and showed its effectiveness. A new discipline needs many preconditions and conditions such as economy, society, culture and history to replace the old one and succeed. Science triumphed over theology, and history did not go to the road of science immediately, but went through a difficult and tortuous road and paid a heavy price for it, which proved this point. In a broader sense, arguing between schools is a development and continuation of wisdom. However, it is precisely because of this early ignorance and confusion, and also because of the development of competition, entanglement and interweaving that human society can progress, the system can be updated, and ideas can be alternated. But because of the later development, they chose "separation" for better progress in the future. If we explain it in a scientific way, it just conforms to scientific laws. So, what is the relationship between society, science and philosophy today? Why are you struggling? It's clear now, why can't you figure it out now? From the historical development, philosophy is the director of science. Because philosophy itself is a macro grasp of science. Science is a concrete practice of philosophy and a new understanding of concrete laws. The philosophical generalization here is relative to the clarity and accuracy of science. Accuracy is to find out the essence of things, but it may also limit the continuous development and exploration of understanding. Generality helps to unify each other's communication, achieve relatively similar consistency and facilitate communication. Therefore, it is precisely because of this uncertainty and controversy that both philosophy and science have the characteristics of process, variability and fuzziness, sometimes one is one and the other is two. Sometimes it is not one or two, and it has been constantly exploring and actively seeking truth. Fetal poison of epistemology: most people who hold materialistic or idealistic views don't understand this. If you don't understand this, you just don't understand what is the concept of science and what is science, and then among these people, "science" just becomes a tool to refute others. This phenomenon often appears in debates, and its essence is to confront science with science. The truth itself is not important, but the slogan is more important. This is actually a kind of fetal poison of the slogan of the Cultural Revolution, which uses class political philosophy and political views to interpret science. Political philosophy naturally has many unreasonable places, such as returning to the origin of human history, and the bourgeois revolution took place in Europe. According to the data, in the Song Dynasty, the productivity level of China people was already very high. If measured by productivity alone, the bourgeois revolution will inevitably take place in China. Why didn't it happen? At the same time, when the British Empire had a bourgeois revolution, its GNP was not much higher than that of China. How do we explain this situation? Can't explain, can only explain. Because history is always so ruthless, it is not fixed by a certain theory, so we must go. Anyone with a little common sense can't help but think, what happened here? Where did you come from and where did you go? Before the British Revolution, there was a Renaissance, and various academic ideas were highly developed. Moreover, from a historical point of view, although the early democratic stage of western society is primitive, it contains 800 years of city-state democratic thought. Of course, thinking alone is ineffective, but thinking can guide productivity, thinking, and then affect the direction of the whole social group. In the history of China, the most brilliant and academic generation period is the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. When it comes to governing the world, it is often a depression era. So there appeared a unique phenomenon in the history of China, that is, the academic "ruling the world in depression and rejuvenating in troubled times". From the history of our society, we can at least observe that if the social science is weak and the natural science is developed, it is often that most people have a bad life, while the autocratic, anti-intellectual and ignorant thoughts linger. It is also a fact that the historical period of complete materialism or idealism, such as the Cultural Revolution, has a bad life. And those who shout "materialism", "only science" or "natural science is the real science" may be like robespierre in history. When it comes to the moment when all opponents are guillotined, it may be the next one. Who is the next one? Anyway, when I met this situation, my first thought was that I didn't want to stay and run away. I really couldn't, so I had to choose to shut up. This will also be a terrible moment. Therefore, in this article, I want to talk about science itself, scientific consciousness and scientific method, not the "only" science; Willing to discuss the scientific process that few people explore, rather than the scientific results; Willing to talk about a living and developing "discipline", rather than preparing to wave a dead "science" sword and kill science cruelly. The right path in the world is vicissitudes. Only when people realize their true colors in history can they discover their own smallness, the river of time and the vastness of the universe. Scientific way: As mentioned above, it is meaningless to simply correct other people's views. Insisting on judging others with philosophical epistemology and political background, and then denying others, can only turn a blind eye, which is not in line with the reality of current things. So we talked about the definition and history of science before, so now let's look at the classification of science itself: science, if divided according to its operation mode, can be divided into theoretical science and practical science. According to the research category, it can be divided into natural science and social science. Of course, you can add another one, that is, humanities. Here, science itself does not exclude theory, but recognizes theoretical science. In other words, science is based on the understanding of human history, including itself, and affirms the duality of theory and practice. At least it can be understood that the academic field of science itself does not agree with materialism or idealism. This is the attitude of science itself. Today, we are used to understanding the world with materialism or idealism, which happens to be the product of the interweaving of discipline and backwardness. For example, when we see Descartes' view of science at that time, we will feel how ridiculous and absurd it is to compare people with machines. Then, if we are still used to looking at science and explaining the world with materialistic or idealistic epistemology, will future generations look ridiculous? The answer is very likely and should be. Psychology, science? So, psychology, science? Psychology refers to the subjective response of organisms to the objective material world. This is the basic definition of psychology. Although it can be called a definition, it is still quite confusing to read. Because a definition actually includes two words: objective material world and subjective reaction. In other words, psychology itself is actually a process, which is developing, changing and even vague. It's just that the field this discipline faces is the inner world of people, not the complete nature. As long as you have experienced it yourself, it is not difficult to feel the nuances. From this point of view, psychology is undoubtedly a science. Because it is through classification that things can be explained. Combining the definition, explanation and historical development of science itself, the question of whether psychology is scientific here has become a self-evident result. Finally, people's understanding of society is colorful and diverse after all. From the perspective of human history, including questioning psychology itself, it may be more able to promote more capable people to reflect, understand and penetrate into life. Therefore, this passage is not only a family statement, but also an introduction. I hope many people will agree, maybe, I hope many people will object. Conclusion: I originally wanted to talk about psychology, but I unconsciously brought it to science. During this period, there were many viewpoints such as philosophy, science, history, culturology, psychology and aesthetics. There is no profound theory, but most of them are mainland goods that have been recognized by the society and are well known by the public (this seems to be more because I am a simple person). And this is probably the most unrecognizable text I personally wrote at present. In fact, in the process of thinking about writing, I gradually realized that the problem may not lie in psychology, but in science itself. I, including our society, don't understand it very well. This situation reminds me of the words of kohut, an autologous psychologist: "What patients tell me may be correct-many times I think I am right and my patients are wrong, but in fact, after long-term exploration, I find that my correctness is superficial and their correctness is deep. "So, the meaning of this passage is more like an internal attempt, a kind of self-consultation, which is based on self-illness, internal reflection as medicine and social reality. I can't help but think of the psychological approach: it is often aimed at a goal from the beginning, and both sides go astray as a result. But it will always come back and be more satisfied than expected. To this end, at the moment, I have been extremely confused with each other for quite some time. In this way, the final top-heavy is very natural and smooth, and the initial problem becomes easy to solve and no longer exists, as if the flood of life is surging, and the original symptoms are like a pebble, overturned and integrated into the river of life itself, and life is restored to its original freshness. Of course, it seems that through the media of this passage, another social psychological reality is clearly explained: a person who is unwilling to deeply understand science will naturally be disappointed after he is willing to study psychology, because psychology looks as disgusting and coherent as other disciplines. It is inevitable that he chooses to leave his mind. Similarly, various disciplines within psychology, including psychoanalysis, humanistic existential psychology, analytical psychology and so on. , always questioned by all parties, feel the lack of natural verification, and then deduce the unscientific inference, but ignore the fact that schools of psychology can still cure mental illness. At the social level, it is not surprising that psychology has mutated into spiritualism, and mysterious constellations are rampant under the cloak of religion. Behind this, there is an internal logic at work.