@ Gerwyn,
Psychology ATTEMPTS to explain why people might make interpretations, 'create one's own reality' (a problematic construct if ever there was one) how 'the mind' (an abstract concept denoting the action of thinking) is structured etc. It doesn't mean they HAVE adequately done so, of course. What is more, human responses can be socially constructed (the belief that women cannot lead, for example, anger responses), and therefore, sociology often provides explanations of human behaviour, beliefs, etc. pointing to external structures. And yes, sociology-informed critiques of psychological claims about human behaviour abound. I'm not saying they are necessarily correct (though I think they very often are), but I'm trying to show how psychology does not have some sort of privileged, 'scientific' insight into human behaviour or even beliefs, attitudes, or responses.
Interestingly, a psychologist/psychotherapist, David Smail, takes a more sociological approach (around power effects, for example).
Now - it's interesting that you've said this: "Science deals with objects and properties which exist independently of a subjective human labelling system Application of subjective socially constructed labels cannot reveal anything objective about mind independent phenoma". Psychology does suffer from this problem! It's labels are socially constructed themselves! The term 'catastrophizing', used in psychological research on 'CFS' is a classic case of a socially constructed interpretation of human behaviour, for example. 'Neuroticism' is another one. Even the constructs of what constitutes 'child trauma' in the CTQ are socially constructed, because they are made according to researcher interpretation of what 'trauma', 'abuse' etc is. Exactly the same as if a sociologist identifies race, gender, and class stratification in a social system, or theorises that there is a moral panic process going on around a subject, for example.
And William James himself was aware of this problem, hence his comments about the snare of the 'psychologist's fallacy'.
I'm aware of the idea that "Rationality and coherence chain of reasoning range and depth which are linguistic constructs with multiple meanings may or may not be useful in assessing qualitative work which is essentially a subjective construction of subjective constructs." The problem applies equally to quantitative measurement of 'subjective construction of subjective constructs'- and these are abundant in psychiatric paradigms of somatic illness.
'Scientific' method, as in cognitive psychology, can still be done incorrectly. It's hypotheses can be generated by psycologists fallacies, for example
In fact, psychologists are aware of and addressing the problems I've outlined above. A good book on this issue is Nightingale and Cromby's 'Social Constructionist Psychology: A Critical Analysis of Theory and Practice'. David Smail's 'Power, Interest and Psychology' I think is essential reading (even where I don't always agree with him). Paula Caplan' ;They say you're crazy' is another useful book.
From a more sociological point of view, Kirk and Kutchins 'Making us Crazy' deals more with psychiatry - but it shows some of the problems of people thinking psychological and psychiatric constructs are 'fact'.
Hell - even biological science can be subject to the problematic social construction of 'facts' - Ann Fausto Sterling and Lynda Birke, both biologists, have shown this with regard to how female reproduction is linguistically constructed.
And here I'm including Marten in my response- feminist sociologists AND psychologists (and biologists even) have dealt with the above issues in a highly reflexive, useful manner. They (we) are really not all 'postmodern' (that's only a proportion of the whole feminist academic discipline). There's a whole range of books that address the problems I've raised and others around claims to objectivity, methodology, power in the research relationship etc. etc. which I will list if anyone is interested. Logical and rational feminist academic work does exist thank you very much!
But I feel we are going around in circles here. I've been using my sociological training and knowledge of logic and scientific research methodology to analyse the problems of psychiatric paradigms of illnesses like CFS very effectively. I'm sure psychologists out there think they are doing the same, and maybe they are. Various lay persons are also analysing the above effectively. It depends on what's important to you I guess: trying to construct feminist academic sociology as some mickey mouse subject compared to some great scientific pillar of psychology seems futile to be honest.
By the way- my research methodology postgraduate qualification is in psychological research methodology as well as sociological research methodology: both seen as social sciences for the purpose of university accreditation.
