4 ms·

> Why would I do that? They study the brain, not the mind -- they're neuroscientists, not psychologists. They are not just neuroscientists and they do study th

> Why would I do that? They study the brain, not the mind -- they're neuroscientists, not psychologists. They are not just neuroscientists and they do study the mind. You might have looked at the first sentence on the department's website: "MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences stands at the nexus of neuroscience, biology and psychology." Or looked at the first sentence for the department in the MIT course catalog: "The study of mind, brain, and behavior has grown in recent years with unprecedented speed." In fact, You can get an undergraduate degree from this department taking only a single neuroscience course and all the rest being cognitive psychology and cognitive science classes. Furthermore, the department offers a minor in psychology, but not in neuroscience. And, for your edification, here is the online material for the course Cognitive Processes, which is one of MIT's definitive classes in cognitive psychology: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-65-cognitive-processes-spring-2004/lecture-notes/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-65... I took this class as an undergraduate, and it is a great class. The famous childhood development psychology professor, Susan Carey, taught this class when I took it. Arguing with you seems fruitless: You just assert things that are patently false without bothering to do the most basic of research or even just listening to what has been said to you. You might even just consider the name of the department: "cognitive" refers to the mind, not the brain, and "cognitive science" is a synonym for "cognitive psychology". (Though when using the term "cognitive science", the study is a bit broader, adding in cross-disciplinary research from artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind. MIT is big on cross-disciplinary research.) How do I know this? Well, I might have just spent a few minutes looking things it up before spouting off, but I also have a degree in cognitive science from MIT. > Yes, and that is why the reliable core of tested psychological theory prevented the Recovered Memory Therapy fiasco of the 1990s, prevented Facilitated Communications from ever getting off the ground There's no one psychology. Have you studied any history of science? Have you read Kuhn? Throughout all of the history of science there have been divisions in scientific fields and "paradigm shifts". As Kuhn pointed out, the old generation has to literally die off before the new paradigm in a field can become the new orthodoxy. Until that happens, many scientists in scientific fields will cling desperately to their already disproven theories. Just look at Einstein, for instance. Why didn't he win a Noble Prize for Relativity? Because there were many physicists who did not yet accept Relativity, even long past the point in time when it was irrefutable. Enough time has not passed for cognitive psychology to become the orthodoxy of psychology, but some day it will be. Cognitive psychology is not going to be "replaced" by neuroscience, but it will be informed by it. And vice versa. The two fields have always informed each other. Also, unfortunately, our understanding of the human mind scientifically is not yet strong enough to offer a whole lot to clinical psychologists, so the establishment of cognitive psychology as the new orthodoxy through all of psychology will no doubt be delayed by the needs of clinical psychologists to do their jobs, rather than just telling people with mental illness to go home and chill for the next 50 years, until we understand the human mind and human brain better. As for "explanation", you completely ignored what I said. If you continue this, there's little point in having a discussion with you. There's no discussion if someone just talks and does not listen. I'll repeat this one more time, however: Physics has not explained why conservation of energy is true. It merely has noted this fact, and has asserted that it is the case based on empirical induction. Other things, of course, are explained in terms of conservation of energy, but conservation of energy has not been explained. The same thing was true for Behaviorism. It didn't explain why the mind was putatively nothing but a large collection of simple learned responses to external stimuli. That was its main premise, which was a hypothesis based on scientific observation, etc. But Behaviorism certainly attempted to explain all the rest of psychology in terms of this premise. And it's a universal principle of rational thought, that once you have identified laws and/or principals, you can use these laws and principles to explain other things, even if you have no explanation for the laws themselves. In any case, Behaviorism's problem was that their model was wrong, and so the explanations failed to pan out, except in certain constrained situations, like training animals. Of course now we know that even those explanations are over-simplified, but they are explanations, nonetheless. In any non-fundamental science, however, comprehensible explanations are likely to be over-simplified. The human mind can only grasp so much complexity and many natural phenomena are hugely complex.

lutusp 14y ago
> "MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences stands at the nexus of neuroscience, biology and psychology." There is no such nexus. The brain can be studied scientifically, the mind cannot be. This would be like creating a new cosmology department at a university that stands at the nexus of astronomy and astrology. > Also, unfortunately, our understanding of the human mind scientifically is not yet strong enough to offer a whole lot to clinical psychologists ... If this were true in medicine, doctors would have to stop offering treatments. But the absence of science has had no effect on psychologists, who continue to offer any treatment that comes into their heads, including complete frauds like Recovered Memory Therapy. If doctors offered the kinds of treatments that psychologists offer, on the basis they offer them, they would be arrested. The reason? That could only happen if doctors ignored the copious science that informs the medical field. It's not credible to say that psychology is (a) a science but (b) has nothing to offer clinicians. One, or the other. Not both. If psychology wants to be regarded as a science, let them craft testable theories that define the field, as every legitimate science has done. Such theories would place psychology on a par with real sciences, each of which is defined by central, testable, falsifiable theories -- physics has the Standard Model, Biology has genetics and evolution, geology has chemistry, physics and plate tectonics. Each of these theories is a clear statement that unites its field. Each of them is testable and falsifiable, and all of them inform practice (engineering for physics, medicine for biology as two examples). Doctors cannot offer treatments that aren't vetted by research. The reason? Medicine is guided by science. Psychologists can and do offer treatments that aren't vetted by research. The reason? Psychology is not guided by science. Hos difficult is that? Want to change psychology's present status as a pseudoscience? As a first step, expel clinical psychology from the field. As a second step, forbid any treatments not vetted by scientific research. I won't hold my breath for these steps to be taken by psychologists, but they certainly, eventually will be taken by others. > Physics has not explained why conservation of energy is true. Conservation of energy is the explanation. This theoretical idea unites most of everyday mechanics and astrodynamics. It's disingenuous to claim that the conservation idea isn't an explanation, because of all the everyday physics that it explains -- planetary orbits, nuclear physics, and many more. Need I add that there is nothing remotely like it in psychology for depth and comprehensiveness. The idea of scientific theories is they should explain as much as possible with the fewest ideas. This is why physics has the scientific reputation it has -- its theories explain a great deal with a handful of well-tested principles. Meanwhile, in psychology, virtually all ideas are excuses for debates between differing factions. As an example, one group thinks focusing a lot of attention on a few activities, or one activity, is a sign of mental illness (Asperger Syndrome). Another group thinks this exact same behavior is the only way to accomplish anything beyond the norm (the "Grit" faction). And they don't bother to try to resolve the chasm between their views as scientists would do. Asperger Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome A quote: "People with Asperger syndrome often display behavior, interests, and activities that are restricted and repetitive and are sometimes abnormally intense or focused." "Grit": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait) A quote: "One way in which Grit differs from the need for achievement is that individuals with high scores in Grit often set extremely long-term goals for themselves and pursue them deliberately even without positive feedback." Different words, same idea -- the ability to focus one's attention on a few goals or one goal. Go to one psychologist, you may be encouraged to persevere. Go to another, you may be diagnosed with an Autism spectrum disorder. Both in the same "scientific" field. The above is just one example among many. Want to turn psychology into a science? Shape theories that unite different descriptions, then test them. Just like real scientists.

lutusp 14y ago

> "MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences stands at the nexus of neuroscience, biology and psychology." There is no such nexus. The brain can be studied scientifically, the mind cannot be. This would be like creating a new cosmology department at a university that stands at the nexus of astronomy and astrology. > Also, unfortunately, our understanding of the human mind scientifically is not yet strong enough to offer a whole lot to clinical psychologists ... If this were true in medicine, doctors would have to stop offering treatments. But the absence of science has had no effect on psychologists, who continue to offer any treatment that comes into their heads, including complete frauds like Recovered Memory Therapy. If doctors offered the kinds of treatments that psychologists offer, on the basis they offer them, they would be arrested. The reason? That could only happen if doctors ignored the copious science that informs the medical field. It's not credible to say that psychology is (a) a science but (b) has nothing to offer clinicians. One, or the other. Not both. If psychology wants to be regarded as a science, let them craft testable theories that define the field, as every legitimate science has done. Such theories would place psychology on a par with real sciences, each of which is defined by central, testable, falsifiable theories -- physics has the Standard Model, Biology has genetics and evolution, geology has chemistry, physics and plate tectonics. Each of these theories is a clear statement that unites its field. Each of them is testable and falsifiable, and all of them inform practice (engineering for physics, medicine for biology as two examples). Doctors cannot offer treatments that aren't vetted by research. The reason? Medicine is guided by science. Psychologists can and do offer treatments that aren't vetted by research. The reason? Psychology is not guided by science. Hos difficult is that? Want to change psychology's present status as a pseudoscience? As a first step, expel clinical psychology from the field. As a second step, forbid any treatments not vetted by scientific research. I won't hold my breath for these steps to be taken by psychologists, but they certainly, eventually will be taken by others. > Physics has not explained why conservation of energy is true. Conservation of energy is the explanation. This theoretical idea unites most of everyday mechanics and astrodynamics. It's disingenuous to claim that the conservation idea isn't an explanation, because of all the everyday physics that it explains -- planetary orbits, nuclear physics, and many more. Need I add that there is nothing remotely like it in psychology for depth and comprehensiveness. The idea of scientific theories is they should explain as much as possible with the fewest ideas. This is why physics has the scientific reputation it has -- its theories explain a great deal with a handful of well-tested principles. Meanwhile, in psychology, virtually all ideas are excuses for debates between differing factions. As an example, one group thinks focusing a lot of attention on a few activities, or one activity, is a sign of mental illness (Asperger Syndrome). Another group thinks this exact same behavior is the only way to accomplish anything beyond the norm (the "Grit" faction). And they don't bother to try to resolve the chasm between their views as scientists would do. Asperger Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome A quote: "People with Asperger syndrome often display behavior, interests, and activities that are restricted and repetitive and are sometimes abnormally intense or focused." "Grit": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait) A quote: "One way in which Grit differs from the need for achievement is that individuals with high scores in Grit often set extremely long-term goals for themselves and pursue them deliberately even without positive feedback." Different words, same idea -- the ability to focus one's attention on a few goals or one goal. Go to one psychologist, you may be encouraged to persevere. Go to another, you may be diagnosed with an Autism spectrum disorder. Both in the same "scientific" field. The above is just one example among many. Want to turn psychology into a science? Shape theories that unite different descriptions, then test them. Just like real scientists.