3 ms·
Prejudice isn't a one way street- you could be described as prejudiced in favor of the Psychology/Psychiatry establishment. Furthermore, there is a long histor
by krakensden 16y ago
Prejudice isn't a one way street- you could be described as prejudiced in favor of the Psychology/Psychiatry establishment.
Furthermore, there is a long history of criticism of Psychology, none of which you addressed. Clinical Psychology has very little data in its favor, and while biology-based approaches have had some success in certain areas, they aren't the same field, and I'm not sure that validates Clinical Pyschology.
The canonical references for this general strand of argument are Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' and Paul Lutus' 'Is Psychology Science?'.
- eavc 16y agoI am not prejudiced because I am educated on the subject. I am therefore biased, at worst. >Clinical Psychology has very little data in its favor. This is borderline nonsense. Clinical psychology is the study of psychological pathology. It generates data, it doesn't require data in support of it. >while biology-based approaches have had some success in certain areas, they aren't the same field, and I'm not sure that validates Clinical Pyschology. They most certainly are in the same field. You clearly don't know what you're talking about on this point. For the record, Lutus's essay, being fraught with half-truths and strawmen, is entirely unimpressive. If you are sincerely interested in understanding the value of psychology as a science, I suggest taking a closer look at its current state rather than a highly selective sampling of the most embarrassing examples that claim the title.