3 ms·

>> 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 o

by lutusp 12y ago

>> 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. Thanks for that clarification, which changed nothing about the exchange or its meaning. > See, this is the issue. You start with it as a non-science and work your way back. No, I start with how science is defined, note that psychology cannot meet the definition, and draw the sole possible conclusion. As did the chairman of the NIMH as he ruled that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, on the ground that it has no scientific content: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h > there have been plenty of theories within psychology that have been falsifiable, have been falsified, and no longer exist. This has never happened in a scientific sense. Ideas that become unpopular or that fall out of clinical use aren't falsified by those circumstances. > I've already listed several falsified theories in my own line of work. Nonsense. None of the were falsified as that term is defined in science, by way of empirical evidence, the kind of evidence not accessible to those who study the mind. > Skinner's theories? Falsified. Piaget's core theories of cognitive development? Falsified. Your claim is absolutely false. These ideas weren't stated clearly enough to be open to scientific falsification, and they were certainly not falsified -- they both have active practitioners who would be surprised to hear your claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner No mention of the falsification you claim exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget No mention of the falsification you claim exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Falsified, with a clearly explained reason, based on empirical evidence. > Different branches of psychology don't interact much because they don't share populations or, often, goals. Like science? The same might be said about different branches of physics, except that physics is a science, consequently particle physicists, who study nature at the smallest scales, and cosmologists, who study science at the largest scales, productively read each other's literature and attend each other's conferences. They have science in common.

HelloMcFly 12y ago
Alright, this is the end of the road for me. > Thanks for that clarification, which changed nothing about the exchange or its meaning. It boggles the mind that you'd even say that. The difference between me saying "you must choose a branch of psychology to call unscientific" and "I do not personally possess the knowledge or capability to stand up for branches of psychology I do not know enough about it" seems pretty substantive. > No, I start with how science is defined, note that psychology cannot meet the definition If you're relying on wikipedia, allow me to do so as well: science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. You take issue with the latter, but many psychological theories do them, no matter how much cotton you stick in your ears. I do not argue that the DSM lacks scientific credibility. > None of the were falsified as that term is defined in science, by way of empirical evidence, the kind of evidence not accessible to those who study the mind. No matter how loud you say it, it doesn't make it more true. You demand that it is true, but it is not. You sit at the armchair, reading no research or studies whatsoever, and judge me for 1) being unwilling to comment on issues which I'm ignorant on and 2) not being an expert at all things psychology. Re: Skinner - you are correct, though he had few "theories" to be wrong about. I meant E.L. Thorndike, Skinner's predecessor (and the other one with a famous "box"). His theory of learning was his greatest achievement, but he eventually repudiated it. Re: Piaget - that is the person wiki, this is the relevant one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development#Challenges_to_Piagetian_stage_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_... Nobody is a classic Piaget psychologist anymore. Did they throw it all out and start over? No, they did not, the iterated and keep testing. If that's the red flag to you, then there you go. > Like science? Sure, like science. Whatever you say. I don't disagree that physics is a more mature science, where connections between different branches are more clear. Have a nice weekend.
- lutusp 12y ago
  >> No, I start with how science is defined, note that psychology cannot meet the definition > If you're relying on wikipedia ... No, Wikipedia is not my source. I rely on a much better source, the thousands of sources that define science in the same way, unambiguously, including many court rulings, for example those that keep Creationism out of public school classrooms by defining science as something that requires empirical evidence and objective falsifiability. > Alright, this is the end of the road for me. Of course it is. Before we had this conversation you had no idea what constituted science and falsification, and now, you still have no idea. I want to thank you for taking part in this conversation -- I often think it's not possible for someone not to understand science basics -- it's really rather simple -- but then I have a conversation like this, and I get it all over again. > I don't disagree that physics is a more mature science, where connections between different branches are more clear. What you think, your opinions, do not matter. Only evidence matters. And it occurs to me that you will never get this. Scientist A says, "There is a largest prime. I don't know which prime it is, but there is a largest one. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept, therefore there cannot be an infinity of primes. Therefore there is a largest prime. Call it p." Scientist B says, "I will falsify your claim. I agree that we shall call the largest prime p. Now let q = p factorial, i.e. q = p * (p-1) * (p-2), etc. At the end of the process, q is either a prime larger than p, which falsifies the claim, or q is composite, composed of primes, at least one of which is larger than p, which falsifies the claim. There are no other possibilities. I have falsified the claim." Scientist A says, "Yes, you have falsified the claim, my opinion doesn't matter, how I feel about it doesn't matter, the falsification relies entirely on incontrovertible, objective evidence, evidence on which all educated observers must agree." That is science. That is manifestly not psychology. Another voice on this topic: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_site_summary.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/doc... Quote: "Today, all natural scientists throughout the world employ the scientific method. Normally it works like this: First, gather some data by observing an object or event, then propose an idea to explain the data, and finally test the idea by experimenting with Nature. Those ideas that pass the tests are selected, accumulated, and conveyed, while those that don’t are discarded — a little like the evolutionary events described on this Web site. In that way, by means of a selective editing or pruning of ideas, scientists discriminate between sense and nonsense. We gain an ever-better approximation of reality. Not that science claims to reveal the truth—whatever that is — just to gain an increasingly accurate model of Nature." "Despite an emphasis on objectivity, some subjectivity does affect the modern scientific enterprise, for this is work done by human beings having strong emotions and personal values. Yet, with the test of time and repeated observations, objectivity eventually emerges and then dominates, enabling us to reach conclusions free of the biased viewpoint of any one scientist, institution, or culture. As a rational investigative approach used to formulate descriptions of natural phenomena, the scientific method is designed to yield a reasonably objective consensus on the nature, contents, and workings of the Universe." [emphasis added] Couldn't have said it better myself. Have a nice day.

by lutusp 12y ago

HelloMcFly 12y ago

Alright, this is the end of the road for me. > Thanks for that clarification, which changed nothing about the exchange or its meaning. It boggles the mind that you'd even say that. The difference between me saying "you must choose a branch of psychology to call unscientific" and "I do not personally possess the knowledge or capability to stand up for branches of psychology I do not know enough about it" seems pretty substantive. > No, I start with how science is defined, note that psychology cannot meet the definition If you're relying on wikipedia, allow me to do so as well: science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. You take issue with the latter, but many psychological theories do them, no matter how much cotton you stick in your ears. I do not argue that the DSM lacks scientific credibility. > None of the were falsified as that term is defined in science, by way of empirical evidence, the kind of evidence not accessible to those who study the mind. No matter how loud you say it, it doesn't make it more true. You demand that it is true, but it is not. You sit at the armchair, reading no research or studies whatsoever, and judge me for 1) being unwilling to comment on issues which I'm ignorant on and 2) not being an expert at all things psychology. Re: Skinner - you are correct, though he had few "theories" to be wrong about. I meant E.L. Thorndike, Skinner's predecessor (and the other one with a famous "box"). His theory of learning was his greatest achievement, but he eventually repudiated it. Re: Piaget - that is the person wiki, this is the relevant one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development#Challenges_to_Piagetian_stage_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_... Nobody is a classic Piaget psychologist anymore. Did they throw it all out and start over? No, they did not, the iterated and keep testing. If that's the red flag to you, then there you go. > Like science? Sure, like science. Whatever you say. I don't disagree that physics is a more mature science, where connections between different branches are more clear. Have a nice weekend.

lutusp 12y ago
>> No, I start with how science is defined, note that psychology cannot meet the definition > If you're relying on wikipedia ... No, Wikipedia is not my source. I rely on a much better source, the thousands of sources that define science in the same way, unambiguously, including many court rulings, for example those that keep Creationism out of public school classrooms by defining science as something that requires empirical evidence and objective falsifiability. > Alright, this is the end of the road for me. Of course it is. Before we had this conversation you had no idea what constituted science and falsification, and now, you still have no idea. I want to thank you for taking part in this conversation -- I often think it's not possible for someone not to understand science basics -- it's really rather simple -- but then I have a conversation like this, and I get it all over again. > I don't disagree that physics is a more mature science, where connections between different branches are more clear. What you think, your opinions, do not matter. Only evidence matters. And it occurs to me that you will never get this. Scientist A says, "There is a largest prime. I don't know which prime it is, but there is a largest one. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept, therefore there cannot be an infinity of primes. Therefore there is a largest prime. Call it p." Scientist B says, "I will falsify your claim. I agree that we shall call the largest prime p. Now let q = p factorial, i.e. q = p * (p-1) * (p-2), etc. At the end of the process, q is either a prime larger than p, which falsifies the claim, or q is composite, composed of primes, at least one of which is larger than p, which falsifies the claim. There are no other possibilities. I have falsified the claim." Scientist A says, "Yes, you have falsified the claim, my opinion doesn't matter, how I feel about it doesn't matter, the falsification relies entirely on incontrovertible, objective evidence, evidence on which all educated observers must agree." That is science. That is manifestly not psychology. Another voice on this topic: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_site_summary.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/doc... Quote: "Today, all natural scientists throughout the world employ the scientific method. Normally it works like this: First, gather some data by observing an object or event, then propose an idea to explain the data, and finally test the idea by experimenting with Nature. Those ideas that pass the tests are selected, accumulated, and conveyed, while those that don’t are discarded — a little like the evolutionary events described on this Web site. In that way, by means of a selective editing or pruning of ideas, scientists discriminate between sense and nonsense. We gain an ever-better approximation of reality. Not that science claims to reveal the truth—whatever that is — just to gain an increasingly accurate model of Nature." "Despite an emphasis on objectivity, some subjectivity does affect the modern scientific enterprise, for this is work done by human beings having strong emotions and personal values. Yet, with the test of time and repeated observations, objectivity eventually emerges and then dominates, enabling us to reach conclusions free of the biased viewpoint of any one scientist, institution, or culture. As a rational investigative approach used to formulate descriptions of natural phenomena, the scientific method is designed to yield a reasonably objective consensus on the nature, contents, and workings of the Universe." [emphasis added] Couldn't have said it better myself. Have a nice day.