Philosophy Alert!
Behaviorism was a school of thought that tried to bring scientific precision to psychology, but ended up making a mess of the field. The essential idea of behaviorism was that only objectively observable aspects of the individual count as scientific data — basically, the person's visible outward behavior, but not their subjective accounts of their own mental states. Subjective accounts were banned in the behaviorist school.
Behaviorism tried to eradicate the subjective entirely, to try to be scientifically objective. However, behaviorism in fact just ended up holding the field of psychology back, because so much useful information is obtained from subjective insight. Indeed, pretty much all the very useful reports posted by ME/CFS patients on this forum are all subjective accounts of how they generally feel, subjective accounts of how certain drugs or supplements affect their symptoms, etc. This is all very valuable data, and it shows that subjective insight is valid.
I have not made an in-depth analysis of behaviorism. Its still a thriving area of research though. The mistake was in presuming it was a sufficiently viable area of research to capture the entirety of human psychology. Instead, in its modern incarnation, its recognized as just one aspect of the process.
Precision is at the core of science. Its currently estimated that at least 50% of psychology is wrong. One of the mistakes being made, one that pervades medicine, is even worse in psychology, and dominates psychiatry, is this notion that they are science. Medicine uses science, but is not generally scientific. This includes Evidence Based Medicine, when taken as a whole.
Psychology is often trying to be something it is not. Its often viewed as something it is not. The attitude that most of it has great scientific authority is a mistake.
Just because something is not fully a scientific discipline, does not stop it from being a rigorous discipline. The pitfalls associated with its research subject, and methodologies, can be recognized and dealt with. The example of a discipline that can do that (but sometimes fails) is sociology. They too often make the mistake of calling it science though. Rigorous methods do not make something science, but a lack of rigor makes something nonscience.
These problems are not confined to psychology. Economics is similarly inflicted, with "laws" that are little better than vague heuristics, and an over-reliance on simplified mathematics with shortcuts that would make many mathematicians shudder. Yet we decide our economic futures based on economic theories that in some cases were disproved half a century ago, and yet nobody seems to care. Economics could be rigorous, more than it is, but one of the first things that needs to go is the notion that its a science.
Much of our understanding of the world is NOT science. That doesn't mean such disciplines are without value, many are vitally important. What it means is that the findings cannot be classed as scientific, and lack scientific authority. By scientific authority I mean an acceptance that a finding has (or at least should be) the potential to be rigorously challenged and tested. In other words, a scientific finding that has been around for a while is usually robust. Yet even in science such a finding can be overturned - that is why we consider it robust, not TRUE.
There is huge uncertainty in economics and psychology. Psychiatry straddles more scientific approaches in combination with even less scientific approaches than psychology.
There is a tradition in psychology that their claims are presented as scientific. Its not just behaviorism that made mistakes. Non-behaviorism wants to be scientific, has scientific trappings, and yet often fails to meet scientific standards. They have their own standards, which have come to be viewed as scientific. This problem also pervades medicine in general.
So what makes sociology different? Why is it a better model for psychology than neuroscience? It comes down to one simple thing, at least in my current view. They have made in-depth analyses of the pitfalls and problems, the limits of precision, the issues with subjectivity and bias, much more than psychology. They recognize the limits of their models, at least usually, and don't claim a level of precision that is prevalent in bad psychological research, at least usually. They are comfortable with uncertainty, recognize it, and deal with it. Furthermore the general understanding is that this is not science, despite the continued attempt to talk about Social Science. There is a reason the current working title of my book is Embracing Uncertainty.
I do think that psychology will go the way of the Dodo eventually, in many respects, and be overtaken by neuroscience. I also think that neurology will overshadow psychiatry. Yet there will always be need for counseling services, though what form they take will evolve.
Yet there are levels of complexity here. Psychiatry emerges out of psychology and neuroscience. Its not reducible to either. Psychology has its roots in the philosophy of mind. Its an attempt at understanding the human brain at a level above that of neuroscience. It emerges from philosophy and neuroscience, but is not reducible to either.
As soon as you include subjective evidence, subjective data, subjective interpretations, its not science. It cannot, and I mean CANNOT, have the same claim to scientific rigor. There are a huge range of problems in interpreting this material. Lately there has been a movement in psychology to put more rigor back into the discipline. I approve of that. While behaviorism did hold back psychology by claiming that only measurable phenomenon mattered, I think that psychology has been held back by the notion that its a science, that its methodologies and techniques are scientific. That it has scientific rigor.
You can translate most of my above arguments into the context of medical diagnosis and treatment. It uses science, but its not science. Its an art. You can also translate most of it to criticism of psychobabble in treating ME.
This the situation in psychology: subjective data cannot be objectively validated, and is subject to an individual's interpretation, but this subjective data is very valuable, so if we want to use it, we just have live these problems that subjective data brings.
NO, we don't have to live with them. That is a core attitude I want to see
eradicated. We need to RESPECT those limitations. What happens instead is that psychological research, and practices, fudge an attitude that those limitations do not exist or are unimportant. It fosters an attitude that the findings and practices are reliable, precise, dependable. That they shouldn't be questioned. That the experts shouldn't be questioned. Its perilously close to embracing dogma rather than reason. I would much rather see an attitude of questioning, of recognition of the limits to their inquiry, and of recognition that there are other ways to approach these things. This very trend I see occurring in recent psychiatric criticism. It can't come soon enough.
More to follow in another post.