3 ms·

Science is not your enemy

2 points by adamsi 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago
Quote: "They were cognitive neuroscientists, who tried to explain thought and emotion in terms of physical mechanisms of the nervous system. They were evolutionary psychologists, who speculated on life in a state of nature and on animal instincts that are “infused into our bosoms.” And they were social psychologists, who wrote of the moral sentiments that draw us together, the selfish passions that inflame us, and the foibles of shortsightedness that frustrate our best-laid plans." Yes, except the fact that the article is about science and these aren't sciences. Science requires evidence and falsifiability. Because of that uncontroversial definition of science, psychology isn't science, it's philosophy. Oh, by the way, "Cognitive Neuroscientist" is the new code word for psychologist, now that "psychologist" has become a dirty word, and now that psychologists are desperate to appear to be scientists. With respect to psychiatry and psychology, society is moving away from any reliance on their imitation of science. Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, has recently decided to abandon the DSM, psychiatry and psychology's "Bible" and central authority, on the ground that it's not scientific enough to guide research efforts. Announcing this decision, Insel said, "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." Source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... As to social psychology, the field is a joke. ScienceInsider reports: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true." Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-repor... Science is certainly not anyone's enemy, but there are many who want the status of science without the substance. One way is to simply use the word "science" without actually meeting science's requirements. Examples include Christian Science, Scientology, and now Cognitive Neuroscientist.

2 points by adamsi 13y ago

Quote: "They were cognitive neuroscientists, who tried to explain thought and emotion in terms of physical mechanisms of the nervous system. They were evolutionary psychologists, who speculated on life in a state of nature and on animal instincts that are “infused into our bosoms.” And they were social psychologists, who wrote of the moral sentiments that draw us together, the selfish passions that inflame us, and the foibles of shortsightedness that frustrate our best-laid plans." Yes, except the fact that the article is about science and these aren't sciences. Science requires evidence and falsifiability. Because of that uncontroversial definition of science, psychology isn't science, it's philosophy. Oh, by the way, "Cognitive Neuroscientist" is the new code word for psychologist, now that "psychologist" has become a dirty word, and now that psychologists are desperate to appear to be scientists. With respect to psychiatry and psychology, society is moving away from any reliance on their imitation of science. Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, has recently decided to abandon the DSM, psychiatry and psychology's "Bible" and central authority, on the ground that it's not scientific enough to guide research efforts. Announcing this decision, Insel said, "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." Source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... As to social psychology, the field is a joke. ScienceInsider reports: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true." Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-repor... Science is certainly not anyone's enemy, but there are many who want the status of science without the substance. One way is to simply use the word "science" without actually meeting science's requirements. Examples include Christian Science, Scientology, and now Cognitive Neuroscientist.