Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Psychology.. Pseudoscience

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 10:56:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some of that is accurate. Some is misinformed or uninformed. Some is flailing. All in all, as an OP meant to generate discussion and a platform for an opinion, I'd give it a 6/10.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 10:57:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics.

It could be argued that psychology (or even sociology) doesn't conform to the same methodology as the natural sciences. Are you of the opinion that this automatically disqualifies them as fields of study? Another question, if ter answer is yes do you think that psychological sciences must conform to the methodologies of natural sciences to be considered as legitimate practices?

Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted.

Interesting.

Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

How deeply have you studied Frued and his descendants? Also, do you think psychology is only made up of Freudian psychoanalysts?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 10:57:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:56:17 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Some of that is accurate. Some is misinformed or uninformed. Some is flailing. All in all, as an OP meant to generate discussion and a platform for an opinion, I'd give it a 6/10.

I'm waiting for Tulle to enter ;)
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 11:00:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:57:59 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:56:17 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Some of that is accurate. Some is misinformed or uninformed. Some is flailing. All in all, as an OP meant to generate discussion and a platform for an opinion, I'd give it a 6/10.

I'm waiting for Tulle to enter ;)

I'm almost positive she won't. That would ruin her positive challenge lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 11:01:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 11:00:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:57:59 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:56:17 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Some of that is accurate. Some is misinformed or uninformed. Some is flailing. All in all, as an OP meant to generate discussion and a platform for an opinion, I'd give it a 6/10.

I'm waiting for Tulle to enter ;)

I'm almost positive she won't. That would ruin her positive challenge lol

She's no fun.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 11:01:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 11:00:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:57:59 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:56:17 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Some of that is accurate. Some is misinformed or uninformed. Some is flailing. All in all, as an OP meant to generate discussion and a platform for an opinion, I'd give it a 6/10.

I'm waiting for Tulle to enter ;)

I'm almost positive she won't. That would ruin her positivity challenge lol

Fixed. She usually does well with it until she logs on.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 3:33:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted.

I think ultimately humans are instinctual, which means naturally, a lot of us are similar psychologically. But life experiences, trauma,deep realizations, etc can influence someone in a way that someone studied in psychology may not ever know. I think a lot of psychologist deal with simple situations, simple as in they have seen certain things happen before, have tried tactics that have worked before for similar situations, and they know they can work. Ultimately, though I don't know if they have the psyche down to a science, though. There is no ultimate right or wrong in psychology, as there is supposed to be in science, so I think your "guessing" assumption is mostly correct.

I think understanding psychology, at least to a minimum is beneficial to all humans. Manipulating the human psyche can get you far, just as understanding it can. But I don't know if there is an objective psyche for everyone.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 4:15:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Such a strong statement. Throwing cognitive science (and hence behavioural economics) , neurobiology and other disciplines - all parts of psychology - to the wind is a very bold and stupid move.

Psychology has changed markedly since Freud's time. People are not Freudian psychologists. Dreaming up a definition of what psychology is and then lambasting said definition is certain not rigorous. I'd be very cautious in just dismissing behavioural economics especially.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:45:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah...

Reduced suicides on the subway platform after the implementation of a suicide prevention program
http://www.ttc.ca...

Support groups improving quality of life for cancer patients
http://med.stanford.edu...

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders (and a bunch of other stuff...)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Blah blah blah, bottom line is Psychology is a new (and varied) discipline and you're taking an old school of thought and judging the entire discipline by it. That's like saying medicine is a pseudoscience because they used to bleed people to death.

I'd have to ask you if you even know what the scientific method is?

http://www.sciencebuddies.org...
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Where is it exactly that you think Psychology fails?
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:46:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.


That was proven wrong, like, 100 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I mean, you're saying things that have no relevance to Psychology today.
yang.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:57:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

I agree with your conclusion, and the general idea of most of your premises, but the picture is more complicated than that. But mental health, as a field/profession/industry/career is a farce -made even more so by the DSM-5.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:59:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 4:15:53 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
Such a strong statement. Throwing cognitive science (and hence behavioural economics) , neurobiology and other disciplines - all parts of psychology - to the wind is a very bold and stupid move.

Psychology has changed markedly since Freud's time. People are not Freudian psychologists. Dreaming up a definition of what psychology is and then lambasting said definition is certain not rigorous. I'd be very cautious in just dismissing behavioural economics especially.

Freud, Jung, etc. had their issues, but you're right that there was a remarkable difference between what they did and what modern shrinks do now -insomuch as in the former case, the field of mental health was less intellectually dishonest.
Tsar of DDO
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:12:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 5:59:48 AM, YYW wrote:

Freud, Jung, etc. had their issues, but you're right that there was a remarkable difference between what they did and what modern shrinks do now -insomuch as in the former case, the field of mental health was less intellectually dishonest.

How so?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
yang.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:21:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 5:59:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/20/2013 4:15:53 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
Such a strong statement. Throwing cognitive science (and hence behavioural economics) , neurobiology and other disciplines - all parts of psychology - to the wind is a very bold and stupid move.

Psychology has changed markedly since Freud's time. People are not Freudian psychologists. Dreaming up a definition of what psychology is and then lambasting said definition is certain not rigorous. I'd be very cautious in just dismissing behavioural economics especially.

Freud, Jung, etc. had their issues, but you're right that there was a remarkable difference between what they did and what modern shrinks do now -insomuch as in the former case, the field of mental health was less intellectually dishonest.

I'll have to confess that my knowledge of psychology is perhaps lacking on the whole - I may be out of my depth here - but it seems to me that your comment is quite... forceful. I think that many people are pretentious or self-righteous when it comes to mental health. Many people make unqualified, trite statements about mental health, dressed up in an intellectual veneer. LK is right to take issue in that, as you are.

Where LK is wrong is dismissing the legitimate contributions of disciplines like cognitive science. I'm rather surprised that you are so quick to dismiss these disciplines. Let me ask you - do you find the field of behavioural economics intellectually dishonest? That seems a rather grave charge to lay. Again, I think people are operating under different definitions.

While we may struggle to conduct social science experiments due to the difficulty in controlling variables, we can often find correlations, and in rare instance causation. To claim that various brain functions are not physically measurable (though the accuracy of those measurements is perhaps less) and such... It's not as if there's some inherent reason why a soft science is flawed. There might be factors that mitigate our ideal ediface, but even so. Look, mental health is an area with many pretensions, but let's not dismiss people like Dan Ariely who provide invaluable insights into matters like integrity.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:25:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 6:12:03 AM, tulle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 5:59:48 AM, YYW wrote:

Freud, Jung, etc. had their issues, but you're right that there was a remarkable difference between what they did and what modern shrinks do now -insomuch as in the former case, the field of mental health was less intellectually dishonest.

How so?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It was, then, not pretending to be medicalized.

The problem, now, is that psychology/psychiatry is on the ever illusory hunt for biological (or even pathogenic) roots for mental health issues, predicated on the assumption that schizophrenia, for example, can be identified in the same way that the flu virus might be. While on its face a worthwhile aspiration, the problem is that this was one of the central assumptions behind the DSM-5, insomuch as it was already written under the assumption that evidence would later surface -when it empirically does not- to validate the present theories.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:27:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 6:21:36 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 8/20/2013 5:59:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/20/2013 4:15:53 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
Such a strong statement. Throwing cognitive science (and hence behavioural economics) , neurobiology and other disciplines - all parts of psychology - to the wind is a very bold and stupid move.

Psychology has changed markedly since Freud's time. People are not Freudian psychologists. Dreaming up a definition of what psychology is and then lambasting said definition is certain not rigorous. I'd be very cautious in just dismissing behavioural economics especially.

Freud, Jung, etc. had their issues, but you're right that there was a remarkable difference between what they did and what modern shrinks do now -insomuch as in the former case, the field of mental health was less intellectually dishonest.

I'll have to confess that my knowledge of psychology is perhaps lacking on the whole - I may be out of my depth here - but it seems to me that your comment is quite... forceful. I think that many people are pretentious or self-righteous when it comes to mental health. Many people make unqualified, trite statements about mental health, dressed up in an intellectual veneer. LK is right to take issue in that, as you are.

Where LK is wrong is dismissing the legitimate contributions of disciplines like cognitive science. I'm rather surprised that you are so quick to dismiss these disciplines. Let me ask you - do you find the field of behavioural economics intellectually dishonest? That seems a rather grave charge to lay. Again, I think people are operating under different definitions.

Behavioral economics does not pretend to be medical, so no.

While we may struggle to conduct social science experiments due to the difficulty in controlling variables, we can often find correlations, and in rare instance causation. To claim that various brain functions are not physically measurable (though the accuracy of those measurements is perhaps less) and such... It's not as if there's some inherent reason why a soft science is flawed. There might be factors that mitigate our ideal ediface, but even so. Look, mental health is an area with many pretensions, but let's not dismiss people like Dan Ariely who provide invaluable insights into matters like integrity.

I have a reading list for you, which I will send to you, at some point this evening.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:11:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:57:33 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics.

It could be argued that psychology (or even sociology) doesn't conform to the same methodology as the natural sciences. Are you of the opinion that this automatically disqualifies them as fields of study?

If you want to study UFOs, nobody is stopping you- but claiming that it's a science is a fallacious statement. Same thing with psychology.

Another question, if ter answer is yes do you think that psychological sciences must conform to the methodologies of natural sciences to be considered as legitimate practices?

Obviously. The term "science" is pretty clearly defined by the scientific method. Hard sciences (and mathematics- to an extent) all conform to the general hypothesis->testing->theory->acceptance paradigm. Psychology, on the other hand, doesn't; how do you test whether penis envy is true?

Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted.

Interesting.

Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

How deeply have you studied Frued and his descendants?

A quick google search about their ideas will show their sheer stupidity.

Also, do you think psychology is only made up of Freudian psychoanalysts?

Psychology, if I'm not mistaken, is about manipulating or "addressing" the problem without the use of drugs. In that case, yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:15:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 3:33:23 AM, TUF wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted.

I think ultimately humans are instinctual, which means naturally, a lot of us are similar psychologically. But life experiences, trauma,deep realizations, etc can influence someone in a way that someone studied in psychology may not ever know. I think a lot of psychologist deal with simple situations, simple as in they have seen certain things happen before, have tried tactics that have worked before for similar situations, and they know they can work. Ultimately, though I don't know if they have the psyche down to a science, though. There is no ultimate right or wrong in psychology, as there is supposed to be in science, so I think your "guessing" assumption is mostly correct.

I think understanding psychology, at least to a minimum is beneficial to all humans. Manipulating the human psyche can get you far, just as understanding it can. But I don't know if there is an objective psyche for everyone.

Psychology works because people want to be manipulated; people most often recognize their problems and want to alleviate their suffering. The individual with depression doesn't want to continue their life being depressed, so they go to a psychologist. However, if the individual gets better, saying that the field of psychology was responsible for his recovery is egregious. Psychological problems can all be controlled by the individual suffering from them, and if he thinks that he is getting real help, he will get better- essentially a placebo effect.

I don't deny psychology's effectiveness; I deny its effectiveness as being mutually inclusive with the scientific method.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 3:36:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

Evidence?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.

Except that psychiatrists actually do something useful.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 3:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 3:36:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

Evidence?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.

Except that psychiatrists actually do something useful.

I should correct myself in that psychologists can only perform single blinds. The "psychological placebo" is called a "talking control." Instead of going through CBT, the person just talks about their problems or whatever they like to a professional.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is, however, possible to do a CBT double-blind using computer programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A lot of psychology (like almost everything else) extrapolates based on data that does not reflect the universal outcomes of things that are alike. It tries to claim that it does, however, while ignoring differences in people. It's filled with vapid generalizations that ignore definitions of things, and, as such, should not be treated seriously.

There are, though, some legitimate parts of psychology that don't go down the route of claiming that because so many serial killers eat food, food is responsible for their mental handicaps. They actually define their terms clearly, have reproducible experiments, and see through the idea of randomly relating things together.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 3:48:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:36:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

Evidence?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.

Except that psychiatrists actually do something useful.

I should correct myself in that psychologists can only perform single blinds. The "psychological placebo" is called a "talking control." Instead of going through CBT, the person just talks about their problems or whatever they like to a professional.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is, however, possible to do a CBT double-blind using computer programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Upon reading this, it occurs to me that I failed to make explicit a point I as advancing: psychology and psychiatry are both, for different reasons, equally worthless.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:32:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:53:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:48:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:36:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

Evidence?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.

Except that psychiatrists actually do something useful.

I should correct myself in that psychologists can only perform single blinds. The "psychological placebo" is called a "talking control." Instead of going through CBT, the person just talks about their problems or whatever they like to a professional.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is, however, possible to do a CBT double-blind using computer programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Upon reading this, it occurs to me that I failed to make explicit a point I as advancing: psychology and psychiatry are both, for different reasons, equally worthless.

Oh? And how are treatments that help people worthless?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:35:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 2:32:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:53:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:48:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:36:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

Evidence?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.

Except that psychiatrists actually do something useful.

I should correct myself in that psychologists can only perform single blinds. The "psychological placebo" is called a "talking control." Instead of going through CBT, the person just talks about their problems or whatever they like to a professional.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is, however, possible to do a CBT double-blind using computer programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Upon reading this, it occurs to me that I failed to make explicit a point I as advancing: psychology and psychiatry are both, for different reasons, equally worthless.

Oh? And how are treatments that help people worthless?

I rather enjoy the fact that you think that people are being helped.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:54:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 2:35:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2013 2:32:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:53:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:48:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:36:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 3:10:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:18:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2013 1:11:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

What about cognitive behavioral therapy? Clinically shown to have improvements.

Yeah... not my point. Read my reply to Tuf.

You do know they perform double blinds w/ cbt to find out what parts make a differences by replacing actual therapeutic technique with word exercises or other cognitive tasks to root out whether it actually works, right?

Evidence?

No different than psychiatrists testing new antipsychotics versus sugar pills.

Except that psychiatrists actually do something useful.

I should correct myself in that psychologists can only perform single blinds. The "psychological placebo" is called a "talking control." Instead of going through CBT, the person just talks about their problems or whatever they like to a professional.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is, however, possible to do a CBT double-blind using computer programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Upon reading this, it occurs to me that I failed to make explicit a point I as advancing: psychology and psychiatry are both, for different reasons, equally worthless.

Oh? And how are treatments that help people worthless?

I rather enjoy the fact that you think that people are being helped.

I call shenanigans on your implicit absolute claim.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 6:31:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 10:30:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Who else here agrees that psychology is ultimately a pseduoscience? It has absolutely no scientific method on which the field can be based upon- there is no ability to empircally test a theory and then make it a fact in the field, as you can in (real) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Psychological assumptions are based on guessing that is solely validated in the eyes of the receiver because of the belief that anybody who spends ten years becoming X or Y is to be trusted. Psychological phenomena cannot be empirically observed or tested because they are not rooting in the physical world, but instead in abstractness.

Note: When I'm talking about psychology, I do not include psychiatrists, who are actual doctors. I'm regarding the Freudian types with their ridiculous concepts (penis envy? wtf?).

Freud has been disproved because his theories did not explain the evidence - i.e. he was rejected via the scientific method. While it's true that psychology relies on subject responses while other sciences don't, it still follows the basic rules of empirical testing: you must make a hypothesis that predicts results, you must test that hypothesis on a large sample group (minimum of 30 individuals), you must use control groups, you must use statistical algorithms to check your results, and then you must reject your hypothesis if it doesn't conform to the data. Psychology courses place a huge emphasis on statistics to minimize the misinterpretation of results.

In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Have even studied psychology? I'm doing it now, and I find it boring and frustrating, but even I can recognize its scientific value.