3 ms·

> But psychologist do have theories-of-the-mind to try to describe why we end up thinking the things that we do. That's false. Psycholgists and psychiatrists d

by lutusp 13y ago

> But psychologist do have theories-of-the-mind to try to describe why we end up thinking the things that we do. That's false. Psycholgists and psychiatrists do not craft or test falsifiable scientific theories -- they publish descriptions without explanations. > They are not complete ... They're not scientific. They lack essential properties that a scientific theory most have, primarily falsifiability, but including the ability to predict observations not yet made, and the ability to produce consensus -- accepted principles -- among different workers in the same field. Psychologists and psychiatrists famously disagree on even the most basic things. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have." > And while there is more to science than publishing descriptions, it is still part of science. Not without falsifiable theories. Remember that falsifiability -- a practical way to compare ideas to reality and abandon ideas that fail the test -- is essential to science. The difference between psychology and astrology is that astrology has clearly stated theories, theories that have been tested and found wanting.

jessedhillon 13y ago
> That's false. Psycholgists and psychiatrists do not craft or test falsifiable scientific theories -- they publish descriptions without explanations. You know nothing about the current state of psychological research and should stop posting.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You know nothing about the current state of psychological research and should stop posting. A productive argument. You may be surprised to learn that the current director of the NIMH shares my views and is acting on them: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s... Quote: "When Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, came out swinging with his critiques of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a couple of weeks ago, longtime critics of psychiatry were shocked and gratified. Insel announced that that the D.S.M.’s diagnostic categories lacked validity, that they were not “based on any objective measures,” and that, “unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS,” which are grounded in biology, they were nothing more than constructs put together by committees of experts. America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." Maybe Insel should take your sage advice and "stop posting" as well. Or maybe you could learn a bit more about this topic.
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    You know, when you post links to the articles you quote from, people can read them and see if the opinions expressed support your thesis. In this case you're posting an article where the NIMH director wonders aloud whether a diagnostic manual hasn't become the proverbial territory itself. Much, much less strong of a claim than yours. Second, your original claim is that this research posted here today is empty, navel-gazing non-science. And still your efforts to show that this claim is true are also wanting, but not for a lack of heat and bluster.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > In this case you're posting an article where the NIMH director wonders aloud whether a diagnostic manual hasn't become the proverbial territory itself. The director isn't merely "wonder[ing] aloud", has has announced his intention to phase out the DSM entirely, replace it with a more evidence-based approach, one that tries to explain, rather than merely describe. In other words, he's saying what I say in this thread. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s... Quote: "When Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, came out swinging with his critiques of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a couple of weeks ago, longtime critics of psychiatry were shocked and gratified. Insel announced that that the D.S.M.’s diagnostic categories lacked validity, that they were not “based on any objective measures,” and that, “unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS,” which are grounded in biology, they were nothing more than constructs put together by committees of experts. America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." In case you're wondering how the current discussion conflates the DSM, a mere book, with psychiatry and psychology, large established fields, it's because the DSM is to psychiatry and psychology what the Standard Model is to physics -- it represents a distillation of research efforts spanning decades. Therefore to reject the DSM is to reject psychiatry and psychology as serious science. > ... your original claim is that this research posted here today is empty, navel-gazing non-science. I suggest that you limit yourself to things I've actually said. But, without either producing a new, empirical, testable theory, or comparing the outcome to an existing theory, the article can only describe the sort of instantly forgettable observation that plagues modern psychological research. That's what's wrong with modern psychological research -- it doesn't lead to consensus, to established principles, principles that might turn psychology into a science.

by lutusp 13y ago

jessedhillon 13y ago

> That's false. Psycholgists and psychiatrists do not craft or test falsifiable scientific theories -- they publish descriptions without explanations. You know nothing about the current state of psychological research and should stop posting.

lutusp 13y ago
> You know nothing about the current state of psychological research and should stop posting. A productive argument. You may be surprised to learn that the current director of the NIMH shares my views and is acting on them: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s... Quote: "When Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, came out swinging with his critiques of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a couple of weeks ago, longtime critics of psychiatry were shocked and gratified. Insel announced that that the D.S.M.’s diagnostic categories lacked validity, that they were not “based on any objective measures,” and that, “unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS,” which are grounded in biology, they were nothing more than constructs put together by committees of experts. America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." Maybe Insel should take your sage advice and "stop posting" as well. Or maybe you could learn a bit more about this topic.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  You know, when you post links to the articles you quote from, people can read them and see if the opinions expressed support your thesis. In this case you're posting an article where the NIMH director wonders aloud whether a diagnostic manual hasn't become the proverbial territory itself. Much, much less strong of a claim than yours. Second, your original claim is that this research posted here today is empty, navel-gazing non-science. And still your efforts to show that this claim is true are also wanting, but not for a lack of heat and bluster.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > In this case you're posting an article where the NIMH director wonders aloud whether a diagnostic manual hasn't become the proverbial territory itself. The director isn't merely "wonder[ing] aloud", has has announced his intention to phase out the DSM entirely, replace it with a more evidence-based approach, one that tries to explain, rather than merely describe. In other words, he's saying what I say in this thread. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s... Quote: "When Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, came out swinging with his critiques of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a couple of weeks ago, longtime critics of psychiatry were shocked and gratified. Insel announced that that the D.S.M.’s diagnostic categories lacked validity, that they were not “based on any objective measures,” and that, “unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS,” which are grounded in biology, they were nothing more than constructs put together by committees of experts. America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." In case you're wondering how the current discussion conflates the DSM, a mere book, with psychiatry and psychology, large established fields, it's because the DSM is to psychiatry and psychology what the Standard Model is to physics -- it represents a distillation of research efforts spanning decades. Therefore to reject the DSM is to reject psychiatry and psychology as serious science. > ... your original claim is that this research posted here today is empty, navel-gazing non-science. I suggest that you limit yourself to things I've actually said. But, without either producing a new, empirical, testable theory, or comparing the outcome to an existing theory, the article can only describe the sort of instantly forgettable observation that plagues modern psychological research. That's what's wrong with modern psychological research -- it doesn't lead to consensus, to established principles, principles that might turn psychology into a science.