3 ms·

> ... trivially disprovable: damage to the brain causes changes in the subject's mind. Prove it scientifically. Prove that the mind change resulted from the br

by 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.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > If this were a scientific discussion, you wouldnt be throwing around the word 'science' like it was some kind of trump card. But it is, it is exactly that. When people try to redefine science to suit themselves, with dire consequences like recovered memory therapy, finally society must formally define it unambiguously. Here's an example where the Creationists tried to redefine religion as science, and in a court test with expert witnesses, their claim was refuted through a clear definition of science: http://arachnoid.com/building_science/index.html#Science_Defined http://arachnoid.com/building_science/index.html#Science_Def... In short, science is defined in the law. This shouldn't have been necessary, but the examples provided by psychology and religion made it necessary. > Instead of 'prove it scientifically!' you'd be saying 'show me your methodology and results'. No, that doesn't work -- the Creationists would insist that what they do is science (which they do) and demand admittance to public school science classrooms. > 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 ... This is pretty funny. I just had a conversation the other day with a psychologist in this forum who insisted that a control group served no purpose. Also, in a field that uses the expression "no-treatment control" so regularly, the nature of the control group is important also. A "no-treatment control" is a group of people who are told to go home without treatment, then are compared to people who get treatment. Consider the difficulty of double-blinding a study in which the control group is sent home untreated. > Are you aware that the NIMH article you've linked three times to defend your case explicitly states that biology underpins mental state? It does no such thing, your claim is false. The article, and others by the same author, say that psychological theories, those based on the mind, are being, and should be, replaced by biological ones, those based on evidence other than the mind. Insel says, "We need to begin collecting the genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to see how all the data – not just the symptoms – cluster and how these clusters relate to treatment response. That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories." Tl/dr: away from the mind as sole source of treatment guidance. In the long term, causes will inform the field, not symptoms. The causes will be biological and genetic. The symptoms are "mental", which makes them next to useless to science. > ... but please stop spreading misinformation about psychology, because you have a distorted, tunnel-vision ... Yes, right. My views and Insel's (NIMH chair), and Allen Frances' (editor of DSM-IV) and others, dovetail perfectly. It's your turn to prove that I have distorted anything, that your claims are anything other than empty rhetoric. > If you actually are the scientist of the kind you laud, then you'll attack individual studies based on methodology ... On that basis, everything is science, there are only individual flawed studies that create a localized bad impression. On that bases, astrology is science, with a scattering of bad studies in a basically sound field. > ... rather than entire fields based on cherry-picked selections and self-defined terminology. Complain to NIMH chair Insel, who holds the same views I do. Scientists would like to see a transition away from mind studies, on the reasonable basis that the mind cannot produce empirical evidence, and for the reason that (a) as Insel says, "Patients with mental disorders deserve better", and (b) because disasters like recovered memory therapy are becoming more common.

by lutusp 12y ago

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.

lutusp 12y ago
> If this were a scientific discussion, you wouldnt be throwing around the word 'science' like it was some kind of trump card. But it is, it is exactly that. When people try to redefine science to suit themselves, with dire consequences like recovered memory therapy, finally society must formally define it unambiguously. Here's an example where the Creationists tried to redefine religion as science, and in a court test with expert witnesses, their claim was refuted through a clear definition of science: http://arachnoid.com/building_science/index.html#Science_Defined http://arachnoid.com/building_science/index.html#Science_Def... In short, science is defined in the law. This shouldn't have been necessary, but the examples provided by psychology and religion made it necessary. > Instead of 'prove it scientifically!' you'd be saying 'show me your methodology and results'. No, that doesn't work -- the Creationists would insist that what they do is science (which they do) and demand admittance to public school science classrooms. > 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 ... This is pretty funny. I just had a conversation the other day with a psychologist in this forum who insisted that a control group served no purpose. Also, in a field that uses the expression "no-treatment control" so regularly, the nature of the control group is important also. A "no-treatment control" is a group of people who are told to go home without treatment, then are compared to people who get treatment. Consider the difficulty of double-blinding a study in which the control group is sent home untreated. > Are you aware that the NIMH article you've linked three times to defend your case explicitly states that biology underpins mental state? It does no such thing, your claim is false. The article, and others by the same author, say that psychological theories, those based on the mind, are being, and should be, replaced by biological ones, those based on evidence other than the mind. Insel says, "We need to begin collecting the genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to see how all the data – not just the symptoms – cluster and how these clusters relate to treatment response. That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories." Tl/dr: away from the mind as sole source of treatment guidance. In the long term, causes will inform the field, not symptoms. The causes will be biological and genetic. The symptoms are "mental", which makes them next to useless to science. > ... but please stop spreading misinformation about psychology, because you have a distorted, tunnel-vision ... Yes, right. My views and Insel's (NIMH chair), and Allen Frances' (editor of DSM-IV) and others, dovetail perfectly. It's your turn to prove that I have distorted anything, that your claims are anything other than empty rhetoric. > If you actually are the scientist of the kind you laud, then you'll attack individual studies based on methodology ... On that basis, everything is science, there are only individual flawed studies that create a localized bad impression. On that bases, astrology is science, with a scattering of bad studies in a basically sound field. > ... rather than entire fields based on cherry-picked selections and self-defined terminology. Complain to NIMH chair Insel, who holds the same views I do. Scientists would like to see a transition away from mind studies, on the reasonable basis that the mind cannot produce empirical evidence, and for the reason that (a) as Insel says, "Patients with mental disorders deserve better", and (b) because disasters like recovered memory therapy are becoming more common.