The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 38254
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe, Psychology is a kind of science which is specifically created to give names to those super-natural/spiritually existent things which are not actually proven by Science itself, or science is unable to prove them. In order to keep Scientific explanations alive they had no other choice except to create another kind of science which has answer to everything that is not actually understood by sciences. And they named it 'Psychology'.


I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate on his opening statement, opposing his claim.

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 [1], which would be central to any science of the spiritual.

Debate Round No. 1


My point still stands. Anything paranormal, or spiritual, or super-natural, is strongly opposed or totally denied of its existence in Psychology or by psychologists. It seems like anything which is beyond the understanding of human intellect is only addressed using false flag of psychology, just in order to oppose or negate the existence of its spiritual/paranormal/super-natural form. They define everything, and refer every power to brain, while spiritualism claims those powers to Soul.


I disagree. As said - if 'psychology' were an umbrella term to blanket everything spiritual, every such aspect should find some kind of explanation in it, which doesn't happen.
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 [2].
If scientists denied the spiritual per se, then parapsychology, openly investigating it, shouldn't exist.

Debate Round No. 2


Alif313 forfeited this round.


Sadly Pro forfeited, so all of my arguments stay unrefuted.

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.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought cons arguments where better and more clear. Pro also for fitted.