> 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

> 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.