10 ms·

> ... all the stuff that is not flashy for tabloids, but is real psychological science. Real psychological science would produce falsifiable theories -- theori

by lutusp 2y ago

> ... all the stuff that is not flashy for tabloids, but is real psychological science. Real psychological science would produce falsifiable theories -- theories that in principle would be discarded after a conclusive failure in impartial empirical tests. Instead, landmark psychological theories that are discarded, result instead from public outcry, not falsification. Examples include Drapetomania, prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, Asperger syndrome. Trained therapists do no better than properly motivated laypeople. This is not meant to disparage either group, some of whom are very effective, but no one knows why a particular person becomes an effective therapist. On leaving his position as NIMH director, psychiatrist Thomas Insel said, “I spent 13 years at NIMH really pushing on the neuroscience and genetics of mental disorders, and when I look back on that I realize that while I think I succeeded at getting lots of really cool papers published by cool scientists at fairly large costs—I think $20 billion—I don’t think we moved the needle in reducing suicide, reducing hospitalizations, improving recovery for the tens of millions of people who have mental illness.” (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-of-knowledge/201705/twenty-billion-fails-to-move-the-needle-on-mental-illness https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-of-knowledge/...) All this will be swept away by a future neuroscience that will shape testable, falsifiable theories about human behavior. Today's psychological alchemy will be replaced by tomorrow's neuroscience chemistry. But as the above Insel quote shows, we're nowhere near that goal.

SubiculumCode 2y ago
Why do you, just as the article, jump from one topic to another, acting like it is a logical progression and not a rant? Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Plenty of hypotheses have been left in the dust because they failed at explaining aspects of a phenomenon. Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Your quote from the NIMH director jumps to a new topic, and is the expression of regret that more didn't get achieved in a very hard field, and the relationship between genes and mental health is not straightforward at all, and just like cancer research, it turned out the problems were much much harder than once thought. Your response is as bad as the article: a rant that ignores the good work, hangs it's hat on the fringe or flashy work. Try again. Show your work.
- lutusp 2y ago
  > Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Those are descriptions, not explanations. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations -- theories, not anecdotes. > Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Yes, that's true. It's true because there are no scientific theories in psychology, past or present. Plenty of narratives, descriptions, but no explanations. Psychology can describe behavior. Neuroscience will eventually explain behavior. > Your response is as bad as the article ... I suggest that you address the topic, not the participants.
  - SubiculumCode 2y ago
    That's bullshit. It's like if you tried to say classical physics and chemistry were not science because they provided a description e.g. given heat, on average particles increase in velocity, on average exerting more force/pressure, which on average, is along this formula. Bullshit.
    - lutusp 2y ago
      > That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false." ... "According to Popper, some disciplines that have claimed scientific validity—e.g., astrology, metaphysics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis —are not empirical sciences, because their subject matter cannot be falsified in this manner." * Psychology studies the mind. * The mind is not part of nature. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature. * Q.E.D. > Bullshit. I believe you said that already, again without a supporting argument.
      - 2y ago

by lutusp 2y ago

SubiculumCode 2y ago

Why do you, just as the article, jump from one topic to another, acting like it is a logical progression and not a rant? Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Plenty of hypotheses have been left in the dust because they failed at explaining aspects of a phenomenon. Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Your quote from the NIMH director jumps to a new topic, and is the expression of regret that more didn't get achieved in a very hard field, and the relationship between genes and mental health is not straightforward at all, and just like cancer research, it turned out the problems were much much harder than once thought. Your response is as bad as the article: a rant that ignores the good work, hangs it's hat on the fringe or flashy work. Try again. Show your work.

lutusp 2y ago
> Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Those are descriptions, not explanations. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations -- theories, not anecdotes. > Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Yes, that's true. It's true because there are no scientific theories in psychology, past or present. Plenty of narratives, descriptions, but no explanations. Psychology can describe behavior. Neuroscience will eventually explain behavior. > Your response is as bad as the article ... I suggest that you address the topic, not the participants.
- SubiculumCode 2y ago
  That's bullshit. It's like if you tried to say classical physics and chemistry were not science because they provided a description e.g. given heat, on average particles increase in velocity, on average exerting more force/pressure, which on average, is along this formula. Bullshit.
  - lutusp 2y ago
    > That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false." ... "According to Popper, some disciplines that have claimed scientific validity—e.g., astrology, metaphysics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis —are not empirical sciences, because their subject matter cannot be falsified in this manner." * Psychology studies the mind. * The mind is not part of nature. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature. * Q.E.D. > Bullshit. I believe you said that already, again without a supporting argument.
    - 2y ago