3 ms·

> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. True, but psychology is not the medical field. You've picked

> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. True, but psychology is not the medical field. You've picked the flashiest "branch" of it to make your archetype, but it's probably the least representative of the whole (though admittedly perhaps the best funded). Clinical psychology is more focused not on what is normal, but what is abnormal, how to diagnose it, and how to respond. Almost all of the rest of psychology is focused on what is normal, typically within a given context (childhood, workplace, developmentally, etc.) > psychology isn't unified by a respect for science, or by reliable, falsifiable theory. Psychology is not unified by a single reliable theory. I have no problem admitting as much. Maybe someday, but not while I'm alive. Again, if that's your baseline for what it takes to be considered scientific, I'm fine saying "then by that definition it's not scientific" and feeling no shame. > This sounds increasingly like one of those joke conversations about which kind of Southern Baptist you are. Then you're not thinking critically. Your doctor-biologist example doesn't fly because one's work (biology) directly and materially affects the work of the other (medicine). What clinical psychologists do, more than almost any other branch, has no impact on me presently, nor I on them. Our populations are different, and the goals of our research with respect to our populations are different. Ridicule the division if you wish, but what do you want me to do? Do you expect my field to reconfigure itself entirely to become experts on abnormal behavior and diagnoses? Should I, in my effort to increase workplace productivity and satisfaction, educate myself on the ins-and-outs of autism or psychological disorders? Human behavior is so large and complex to support these various divisions. Many, many branches are connected in some way. It's a web. I have no ability to speak beyond the basics of clinical psychology. I can speak to psychometrics, social personality, experimental, educational and consumer psychology, and behavioral analysis (all of which are branches of the APA). Outside of a general interest in human behavior with no regard for context, my goals are as different from a clinical psychologists as a biologists are from neurologists. It's hard enough to do good work in specific contexts, unfortunately. Psychology right now is a bottoms-up field because we're just too ignorant as a species (despite efforts) to do it top-down right now. > I say this to remind you how you sound then you try to describe psychology as though it's a bunch of disconnected pieces. Not that that isn't so, but it provides us with a measure of the significance of science in psychology. I don't have to try to describe it that way, because it is. It's a pragmatic response to the complications of understanding people on the whole. The whole is too disparate, so look at the pieces. That bothers you, but most don't seem as perturbed. I'm sure you see this as concrete evidence for your point, but you won't be surprised that I think that's poor criteria. "Psychology" as a term is almost certainly overly broad, which is why so many divisions exist in the first place. > If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists It is true, and I disagree. Bad science is found everywhere. Look at what bad science has done for vaccines. Do I hold it as an archetype of medical science? Your argument seems to be "we're not perfect at explaining literally all cognition and behavior in a Single Unified Theory now, mistakes have been made in the past, so sod the whole thing." Physicists are on the same page because their work is infinitely more provable. Ultimately human cognition and behavior is a much more practically difficult, nebulous topic at the present time that's going to take longer to get right on the whole. It's all probably just math itself in some respect, and maybe we'll know the equation someday à la Hari Seldon in The Foundation. We're not there yet. >> The last part of your request is unreasonable - proving that there is no utility whatsoever in old theories is unnecessary. > Then you do not understand science. Then you're not thinking critically. It's this kind of thing that turns me off these conversations completely. For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing. While the theory on the whole may prove false, certain elements of the theory or the direction may prove useful in new theories. Old, falsified theories are invaluable for paving the way towards new theories, and not all elements of all falsified theories need be disposed of whole-hog. You can completely reject and recognize the positive contributions it has made, and the utility elements of it still possess. I think we know where each other stand on this now. At the very least, you got your examples. EDIT: Passovers for grammar.

lutusp 12y ago
>> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. > True, but psychology is not the medical field. This is becoming circular. I say psychology isn't scientific, you say I have to say which part of psychology I'm referring to, I say the very question indicts the scientific standing of the field, because scientific fields are united by consensus on the meaning of evidence. I use medicine as an obvious example. Then you reject my comparison with medicine by saying that psychology isn't medicine. One, psychiatrists would vigorously disagree (their livelihood depends on an association with medicine), and two, it's a red herring. The issue is whether a field can call itself scientific if it's not guided by evidence, and if there's no consensus about the meaning of the theories that define the field. In the case of psychology, there are no such field-defining theories, consequently the field is splintered into warring factions like sects of a religious order. > For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing. You're missing the point that there are no scientific psychological theories. There are no such theories that are open to falsification by empirical evidence. And there has never been a scientific falsification of any psychological theory, ever, anywhere. Your use of the word "theory" is misguided, because it resembles how scientists talk. >> If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists > It is true, and I disagree. This is not a literature debate and it is not a matter of opinion -- it must be resolved by evidence. No scientist, when given a chance to present evidence, instead says, "I disagree". > Bad science is found everywhere. Psychology is not bad science, it is non-science. In bad science, theories are weak and short-lived, but they are falsified, as with astrology, phrenology, the Phlogiston theory, the N-ray theory, and so forth. In non-science, theories aren't open to a comparison with empirical evidence, consequently they cannot be falsified. No falsifiability, no science.
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  > This is becoming circular. I say psychology isn't scientific, you say I have to say which part of psychology I'm referring to, I say the very question indicts the scientific standing of the field, because scientific fields are united by consensus on the meaning of evidence. I use medicine as an obvious example. No, that is not what I said. I said I personally cannot speak to certain branches of psychology, nor defend them, nor think they should be considered archetypes. I won't speak to something I know little about. I see it doesn't seem to stop you. I didn't reject your comparison because psychology isn't medicine, I reject it because it is a bad comparison. I'll use a more apt one. Different branches of psychology don't interact much because they don't share populations or, often, goals. You want to use medicine as a comparator. I know for a fact that most pediatricians (my wife among them) don't stay up to date, or much care, what's happening with geriatricians. I know that radiologists aren't terribly interested in the work of physical therapists. Ophthalmologists and cardiologists? Probably not reading the same stuff. And yet they are linked by care and interest in the general human physiology. But does one's work impact the other? Not really, not much. But biologists can certainly impact both. For psychology, the cognitive psychologists probably is the most "upstream." I care what they do like dermatologists care what biologists do. > You're missing the point that there are no scientific psychological theories. There are no such theories that are open to falsification by empirical evidence. And there has never been a scientific falsification of any psychological theory, ever, anywhere. Your use of the word "theory" is misguided, because it resembles how scientists talk. I'm only "missing the point" because your insisting that's the critical issue, and I'm saying you're wrong not in premise but in reviewing the state of things. If your use of the word "theory" is for a Single Unified Theory of all Human Behavior and Cognition, then I agree. I don't think that's the baseline for a scientific psychological theory, and there have been plenty of theories within psychology that have been falsifiable, have been falsified, and no longer exist. You even asked for some examples, which I provided. But what you do then is twist the criteria for what counts to meet only the standard you set. You'll say "it isn't my criteria" I'm sure, but I'm not seeing anything that says otherwise. >>>>> Consider the example of Asperger Syndrome... recovered memory therapy. >>>> ... but you should not accept those as archetypal representations of all psychological and social science research. >>> If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists >> It is true, and I disagree. > This is not a literature debate and it is not a matter of opinion -- it must be resolved by evidence. I'm not entirely sure of your point here. What scientific evidence are you asking for that some examples of bad practice / science / outcomes should not stand as the primary representation of all psychological research? > Psychology is not bad science, it is non-science... No falsifiability, no science. See, this is the issue. You start with it as a non-science and work your way back. I've already listed several falsified theories in my own line of work. Outside of that: Skinner's theories? Falsified. Piaget's core theories of cognitive development? Falsified. McGregor's Theory X and Y? Falsified. Unlike other branches they don't vanish entirely, but elements remain through new theories and contributions. But yet, the DSM exists, so it's all hogwash. We are indeed talking in circles.

lutusp 12y ago

>> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. > True, but psychology is not the medical field. This is becoming circular. I say psychology isn't scientific, you say I have to say which part of psychology I'm referring to, I say the very question indicts the scientific standing of the field, because scientific fields are united by consensus on the meaning of evidence. I use medicine as an obvious example. Then you reject my comparison with medicine by saying that psychology isn't medicine. One, psychiatrists would vigorously disagree (their livelihood depends on an association with medicine), and two, it's a red herring. The issue is whether a field can call itself scientific if it's not guided by evidence, and if there's no consensus about the meaning of the theories that define the field. In the case of psychology, there are no such field-defining theories, consequently the field is splintered into warring factions like sects of a religious order. > For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing. You're missing the point that there are no scientific psychological theories. There are no such theories that are open to falsification by empirical evidence. And there has never been a scientific falsification of any psychological theory, ever, anywhere. Your use of the word "theory" is misguided, because it resembles how scientists talk. >> If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists > It is true, and I disagree. This is not a literature debate and it is not a matter of opinion -- it must be resolved by evidence. No scientist, when given a chance to present evidence, instead says, "I disagree". > Bad science is found everywhere. Psychology is not bad science, it is non-science. In bad science, theories are weak and short-lived, but they are falsified, as with astrology, phrenology, the Phlogiston theory, the N-ray theory, and so forth. In non-science, theories aren't open to a comparison with empirical evidence, consequently they cannot be falsified. No falsifiability, no science.

HelloMcFly 12y ago
> This is becoming circular. I say psychology isn't scientific, you say I have to say which part of psychology I'm referring to, I say the very question indicts the scientific standing of the field, because scientific fields are united by consensus on the meaning of evidence. I use medicine as an obvious example. No, that is not what I said. I said I personally cannot speak to certain branches of psychology, nor defend them, nor think they should be considered archetypes. I won't speak to something I know little about. I see it doesn't seem to stop you. I didn't reject your comparison because psychology isn't medicine, I reject it because it is a bad comparison. I'll use a more apt one. Different branches of psychology don't interact much because they don't share populations or, often, goals. You want to use medicine as a comparator. I know for a fact that most pediatricians (my wife among them) don't stay up to date, or much care, what's happening with geriatricians. I know that radiologists aren't terribly interested in the work of physical therapists. Ophthalmologists and cardiologists? Probably not reading the same stuff. And yet they are linked by care and interest in the general human physiology. But does one's work impact the other? Not really, not much. But biologists can certainly impact both. For psychology, the cognitive psychologists probably is the most "upstream." I care what they do like dermatologists care what biologists do. > You're missing the point that there are no scientific psychological theories. There are no such theories that are open to falsification by empirical evidence. And there has never been a scientific falsification of any psychological theory, ever, anywhere. Your use of the word "theory" is misguided, because it resembles how scientists talk. I'm only "missing the point" because your insisting that's the critical issue, and I'm saying you're wrong not in premise but in reviewing the state of things. If your use of the word "theory" is for a Single Unified Theory of all Human Behavior and Cognition, then I agree. I don't think that's the baseline for a scientific psychological theory, and there have been plenty of theories within psychology that have been falsifiable, have been falsified, and no longer exist. You even asked for some examples, which I provided. But what you do then is twist the criteria for what counts to meet only the standard you set. You'll say "it isn't my criteria" I'm sure, but I'm not seeing anything that says otherwise. >>>>> Consider the example of Asperger Syndrome... recovered memory therapy. >>>> ... but you should not accept those as archetypal representations of all psychological and social science research. >>> If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists >> It is true, and I disagree. > This is not a literature debate and it is not a matter of opinion -- it must be resolved by evidence. I'm not entirely sure of your point here. What scientific evidence are you asking for that some examples of bad practice / science / outcomes should not stand as the primary representation of all psychological research? > Psychology is not bad science, it is non-science... No falsifiability, no science. See, this is the issue. You start with it as a non-science and work your way back. I've already listed several falsified theories in my own line of work. Outside of that: Skinner's theories? Falsified. Piaget's core theories of cognitive development? Falsified. McGregor's Theory X and Y? Falsified. Unlike other branches they don't vanish entirely, but elements remain through new theories and contributions. But yet, the DSM exists, so it's all hogwash. We are indeed talking in circles.