Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!
Debate Rounds (3)
Firstly, although all early sciences ascribed spiritual elements to everything in nature, most of those (alchemy, astronomy, etc.) aren't assigned to the beginning of modern psychology.
Secondly, psychology is by definition a natural science itself and doesn't cover topics like ghosts or the afterlife , which would be central to any science of the spiritual.
Also, since psychology exists, for Pro's claim to be true there must be anything supernatural to begin with, at least to the human mind. Only contrary evidence was found .
If scientists denied the spiritual per se, then parapsychology, openly investigating it, shouldn't exist.
Alif313 forfeited this round.
Finally, logically there should be no overlap between psychology and natural sciences if the former was just a collection of everything that - using Pro's definition - principally cannot be explained by the latter. Thus the existence of neuropsychology further contradicts Pro's hypothesis, who didn't present any support to his claim.
I want to thank my opponent for this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: I thought cons arguments where better and more clear. Pro also for fitted.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.