3 ms·

> That's a rather bold claim to levy against an entire field without any evidence to back it up. As to evidence, it's copious. The NIMH has recently abandoned

by lutusp 12y ago

> That's a rather bold claim to levy against an entire field without any evidence to back it up. As to evidence, it's copious. The NIMH has recently abandoned the DSM as a basis for scientific research proposals for the simple reasons that it has no scientific content. Also, you need to understand that psychologists have the burden of evidence to produce positive evidence of robust scientific theories backed by empirical observations, not on their critics to prove a negative, which is what you're proposing. Proving a negative is an impossible burden (example: try disproving the existence of Bigfoot), and here it's misplaced in any case. > While it's true that there are a lot of psychologists out there who are not doing good science, it's quite unfair to say that psychology doesn't "offer explanations" or "craft testable theories". That's a simple fact, it's hardly controversial. Count the number of explanations (theories) offered by psychologists over the years that were empirical and testable, and that survived the subsequent tests -- or, for that matter, that were conclusively falsified using empirical evidence. There aren't any. > Remember, cognitive psychology (brain imaging and reaction time data) and neuropsychology ... "Neuropsychology" is a desperate attempt to conflate mind studies and brain studies. Psychology's subject is the mind. Neuroscience's subject is the brain and nervous system. There's no common ground. Many psychologists are calling themselves neuropsychologists now, aware that mind studies have been discredited on the basis that it's impossible to empirically study something that has no empirical existence, and that science requires empirical observations. To those who say that the mind is a manifestation of the brain's activity, that's an interesting philosophical position, but it can't be verified (or refuted) empirically, because the mind is not an empirical entity. This means all this talk about the life of the mind is philosophy, not science. It's certainly too soon to be offering mind treatments and claiming it as science, without any empirical evidence. This is how and why recovered memory therapy went off the rails -- there was no empirical basis to falsify any claim, which meant that any claim could be -- and was -- made: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/ http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/

vacri 12y ago
"Neuropsychology" is a desperate attempt to conflate mind studies and brain studies. Psychology's subject is the mind. Neuroscience's subject is the brain and nervous system. There's no common ground. My university degree was a comajor, half a standard psych degree, run by the humanities department, half a neuroscience degree, run by the bioscience department. You are just plain wrong here, and trivially disprovable: damage to the brain causes changes in the subject's mind. This means all this talk about the life of the mind is philosophy, not science. Science is philosophy, and robust science relies heavily on methodologies that have been determined through philosophy. Another issue you're getting wrong is the supposed need for science to have explanations. Science is about robust observation and reporting; an explanation is a bonus. No-one wanders around saying that astronomers are charlatans because there's no explanation for dark matter. It's all much of a muchness, though. You've made up your mind that psychology is some sort of satanic evil, and won't be dissuaded. You've quoted the same NIMH article three times now, missing that the article isn't saying that the DSM is worthless, but instead that there can be a better resource - and that better resource won't come along unless the issue is forced.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > ... trivially disprovable: damage to the brain causes changes in the subject's mind. Prove it scientifically. Prove that the mind change resulted from the brain damage, not the other way around. And prove that we can get ten observers to interview the experimental subject, ask questions about his/her subjective mental experience, through self-reporting, and draw the same conclusion. This is a classic problem, you must know about it, and it's why you shouldn't be making claims about the mind and science. > Science is philosophy, and robust science relies heavily on methodologies that have been determined through philosophy. No, science is not philosophy, any more than philosophy is literature, something that it resembles. Science requires falsifiability. Philosophy does not. I could go through dozens of similar points that make science distinct from philosophy. > Another issue you're getting wrong is the supposed need for science to have explanations. Since you haven't thought your position through, let me prove that science requires explanations. Doctor Dubious invents a new treatment for the common cold. His treatment is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until the patient gets better. Sometimes the treatment takes a week, but it always works — the cold sufferer always recovers. So, why doesn't Doctor Dubious get a Nobel Prize for his breakthrough? The answer is that the procedure is only a description — shake the gourd, patient recovers — without an explanation, without a basis for actually learning anything or being truthful about the connection between cause and effect. It's the same with psychology. Science requires the shaping and testing of theories. This is what distinguishes it from the practice of witch doctors. > You've made up your mind that psychology is some sort of satanic evil, and won't be dissuaded. Either locate where I said or implied this, or retract and apologize, as you would be obliged to do if this were a science discussion between educated people. I won't hold my breath.
  - vacri 12y ago
    I could go through dozens of similar points that make science distinct from philosophy. Go for it. I'd like to hear them. You're offering, I'll take you up on that. (edit: --actually, snipped the edit, because it just makes things longer --) retract and apologize, as you would be obliged to do if this were a science discussion between educated people. If this were a scientific discussion, you wouldnt be throwing around the word 'science' like it was some kind of trump card. Instead of 'prove it scientifically!' you'd be saying 'show me your methodology and results'. I mean, your doctor dubious example doesn't even work - you don't need to know the mechanism of how the patient recovers from a cold to merely have a control group that shows the same recovery without the magic gourd. Prove it scientifically. Prove that the mind change resulted from the brain damage, not the other way around. Final Edit: Are you aware that the NIMH article you've linked three times to defend your case explicitly states that biology underpins mental state? Why do you want me to prove something to you that you're already using to defend what you're saying? In any case, neither of us are going to change the others' mind, but please stop spreading misinformation about psychology, because you have a distorted, tunnel-vision view of it and laypeople who don't know any better will take it on face value. If you actually are the scientist of the kind you laud, then you'll attack individual studies based on methodology, rather than entire fields based on cherry-picked selections and self-defined terminology.

by lutusp 12y ago

vacri 12y ago

"Neuropsychology" is a desperate attempt to conflate mind studies and brain studies. Psychology's subject is the mind. Neuroscience's subject is the brain and nervous system. There's no common ground. My university degree was a comajor, half a standard psych degree, run by the humanities department, half a neuroscience degree, run by the bioscience department. You are just plain wrong here, and trivially disprovable: damage to the brain causes changes in the subject's mind. This means all this talk about the life of the mind is philosophy, not science. Science is philosophy, and robust science relies heavily on methodologies that have been determined through philosophy. Another issue you're getting wrong is the supposed need for science to have explanations. Science is about robust observation and reporting; an explanation is a bonus. No-one wanders around saying that astronomers are charlatans because there's no explanation for dark matter. It's all much of a muchness, though. You've made up your mind that psychology is some sort of satanic evil, and won't be dissuaded. You've quoted the same NIMH article three times now, missing that the article isn't saying that the DSM is worthless, but instead that there can be a better resource - and that better resource won't come along unless the issue is forced.

lutusp 12y ago
> ... trivially disprovable: damage to the brain causes changes in the subject's mind. Prove it scientifically. Prove that the mind change resulted from the brain damage, not the other way around. And prove that we can get ten observers to interview the experimental subject, ask questions about his/her subjective mental experience, through self-reporting, and draw the same conclusion. This is a classic problem, you must know about it, and it's why you shouldn't be making claims about the mind and science. > Science is philosophy, and robust science relies heavily on methodologies that have been determined through philosophy. No, science is not philosophy, any more than philosophy is literature, something that it resembles. Science requires falsifiability. Philosophy does not. I could go through dozens of similar points that make science distinct from philosophy. > Another issue you're getting wrong is the supposed need for science to have explanations. Since you haven't thought your position through, let me prove that science requires explanations. Doctor Dubious invents a new treatment for the common cold. His treatment is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until the patient gets better. Sometimes the treatment takes a week, but it always works — the cold sufferer always recovers. So, why doesn't Doctor Dubious get a Nobel Prize for his breakthrough? The answer is that the procedure is only a description — shake the gourd, patient recovers — without an explanation, without a basis for actually learning anything or being truthful about the connection between cause and effect. It's the same with psychology. Science requires the shaping and testing of theories. This is what distinguishes it from the practice of witch doctors. > You've made up your mind that psychology is some sort of satanic evil, and won't be dissuaded. Either locate where I said or implied this, or retract and apologize, as you would be obliged to do if this were a science discussion between educated people. I won't hold my breath.
- vacri 12y ago
  I could go through dozens of similar points that make science distinct from philosophy. Go for it. I'd like to hear them. You're offering, I'll take you up on that. (edit: --actually, snipped the edit, because it just makes things longer --) retract and apologize, as you would be obliged to do if this were a science discussion between educated people. If this were a scientific discussion, you wouldnt be throwing around the word 'science' like it was some kind of trump card. Instead of 'prove it scientifically!' you'd be saying 'show me your methodology and results'. I mean, your doctor dubious example doesn't even work - you don't need to know the mechanism of how the patient recovers from a cold to merely have a control group that shows the same recovery without the magic gourd. Prove it scientifically. Prove that the mind change resulted from the brain damage, not the other way around. Final Edit: Are you aware that the NIMH article you've linked three times to defend your case explicitly states that biology underpins mental state? Why do you want me to prove something to you that you're already using to defend what you're saying? In any case, neither of us are going to change the others' mind, but please stop spreading misinformation about psychology, because you have a distorted, tunnel-vision view of it and laypeople who don't know any better will take it on face value. If you actually are the scientist of the kind you laud, then you'll attack individual studies based on methodology, rather than entire fields based on cherry-picked selections and self-defined terminology.