4 ms·

> You always go to this example, but it does not convince anyone of anything because you are not only foregoing explanation but also a control group. Yes, beca

by lutusp 12y ago

> You always go to this example, but it does not convince anyone of anything because you are not only foregoing explanation but also a control group. Yes, because my example is meant to caricature psychological "science" -- that's its purpose. Therefore it must have the same logical pitfalls as the class of study it caricatures. Is there a suggestion that psychiatrists or psychologists have control groups that work? Does the expression "no-treatment control" sound familiar? It's an often-seen expression in psychiatry and psychology studies. It results from an awareness that real scientists have control groups, but because of the nature of psychological studies, that's often not practical (imagine a study comparing therapeutic methods -- how would one design a realistic faux therapy for control purposes?). But these people want the appearance of science, so they call those denied treatment a "no-treatment control". "Send him home, we're not treating him. Oh, and add him to the 'no-treatment control' group." http://www.academia.edu/186808/The_Selection_and_Design_of_Control_Conditions_for_Randomized_Controlled_Trials_of_Psychological_Interventions http://www.academia.edu/186808/The_Selection_and_Design_of_C... Quote: "Although no-treatment controls have an appealing simplicity, they also have a number of potential disadvantages." I always laugh when I read that. > ... maybe it's still incorrect to say "the study showed gourd-shaking effective in treating the cold" ... Remember that I was mimicking a psychiatrist or psychologist, the sort of person willing to publish a paper containing this kind of reasoning in a theoretical vacuum. Anyway, the absence of a central corpus of falsifiable theory in psychiatry speaks for itself. All real sciences have such a corpus of theory, it's falsifiable and it informs all work in the field, psychiatry doesn't have one. Psychiatrists are free to go in any direction they please, even contradict each other on matters of substance, and without a basis in theory. It's not science.

dllthomas 12y ago
'Yes, because my example is meant to caricature psychological "science" -- that's its purpose. Therefore it must have the same logical pitfalls as the class of study it caricatures.' You explicitly stated that the example was "for those who doubt the central role of explanations in science". That you can throw together an example with a bunch of flaws that produces a flawed result is both unsurprising and not especially damning of any specific one of the flaws - one flaw is enough to be wrong. Therefore, your example is not very persuasive on the issue you claimed it directed at. If you're just trying to get your jollies lampooning everything that sometimes goes wrong with psych research, that's fine - but present it that way. If you're trying to help people reason better - and possibly find flaws in your own reasoning - isolating particular problems is a much better approach.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > You explicitly stated that the example was "for those who doubt the central role of explanations in science". Yes, and my example proves the point I am making -- one must have tentative, falsifiable explanations in science. Choose your own example if you don't like mine, but make no mistake about it -- scientists explain things. If the explanations fail, then another explanation is tried. But description is not science, that's stamp collecting. This goes as far back as Francis Bacon, who first articulated it -- reading Bacon's philosophical works, the role of explanation, of theory, is clearly set out as a requirement. More recently, falsifiability has been made a requirement for science, especially in cases where science is defined in legal actions. And descriptions cannot be falsified -- if I say that I saw many tiny points of light in the night sky, that can hardly be falsified. But if I make the claim that those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces at a great distance, that explanation is open to examination and falsification, and I have crossed the threshold of science. This is why the dried gourd example is perfect for my purpose -- it aptly caricatures real psychological work. And once one tries to take a step toward science, to explain the result, it falls apart, like so many psychological studies do.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    It's like you know what you want to rant about, and it doesn't matter what you're actually responding to. I'd hoped to learn something, but I think I've got to give up on your posts.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > It's like you know what you want to rant about ... You mean by quoting authoritative sources like the chairman of the NIMH, whose views resemble my own? > ... but I think I've got to give up on your posts. Feel free, but if you've managed to miss the historical change taking place in mental health right now, then nothing I might say will help. The tl;dr is that neuroscience is taking over.

by lutusp 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago

'Yes, because my example is meant to caricature psychological "science" -- that's its purpose. Therefore it must have the same logical pitfalls as the class of study it caricatures.' You explicitly stated that the example was "for those who doubt the central role of explanations in science". That you can throw together an example with a bunch of flaws that produces a flawed result is both unsurprising and not especially damning of any specific one of the flaws - one flaw is enough to be wrong. Therefore, your example is not very persuasive on the issue you claimed it directed at. If you're just trying to get your jollies lampooning everything that sometimes goes wrong with psych research, that's fine - but present it that way. If you're trying to help people reason better - and possibly find flaws in your own reasoning - isolating particular problems is a much better approach.

lutusp 12y ago
> You explicitly stated that the example was "for those who doubt the central role of explanations in science". Yes, and my example proves the point I am making -- one must have tentative, falsifiable explanations in science. Choose your own example if you don't like mine, but make no mistake about it -- scientists explain things. If the explanations fail, then another explanation is tried. But description is not science, that's stamp collecting. This goes as far back as Francis Bacon, who first articulated it -- reading Bacon's philosophical works, the role of explanation, of theory, is clearly set out as a requirement. More recently, falsifiability has been made a requirement for science, especially in cases where science is defined in legal actions. And descriptions cannot be falsified -- if I say that I saw many tiny points of light in the night sky, that can hardly be falsified. But if I make the claim that those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces at a great distance, that explanation is open to examination and falsification, and I have crossed the threshold of science. This is why the dried gourd example is perfect for my purpose -- it aptly caricatures real psychological work. And once one tries to take a step toward science, to explain the result, it falls apart, like so many psychological studies do.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 12y ago
  It's like you know what you want to rant about, and it doesn't matter what you're actually responding to. I'd hoped to learn something, but I think I've got to give up on your posts.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > It's like you know what you want to rant about ... You mean by quoting authoritative sources like the chairman of the NIMH, whose views resemble my own? > ... but I think I've got to give up on your posts. Feel free, but if you've managed to miss the historical change taking place in mental health right now, then nothing I might say will help. The tl;dr is that neuroscience is taking over.