4 ms·
Pseudoscience is not necessarily bad. Most of psychology and philosophy, for instance, is essentially pseudoscience.
by JacksonGariety 12y ago
Pseudoscience is not necessarily bad. Most of psychology and philosophy, for instance, is essentially pseudoscience.
- meowface 12y agoIt's certainly bad when it's concerning physical medicine.
- JacksonGariety 12y agoWhat we consider "science" appeared in the 1600's with Galileo/Descartes. People most certainly made progress in medicine prior to that time.
- bishnu 12y agoI would disagree with this assessment. If X is not a science, it does not follow that X is a pseudoscience.
- JacksonGariety 12y agoPseudoscience is an un-scientific practice which people _generally assume_ to be scientific. Psychology most certainly applies, and I think the author's conclusions are the best he's got at the moment because science cannot help him.
- thedufer 12y agoCan you share your definition of pseudoscience? You are clearly using quite a different one from the rest of the commenters here. Under the usual definitions, philosophy is neither science nor pseudoscience, and psychology is firmly in the realm of science.
- JacksonGariety 12y agoPseudoscience is a non-scientific practice which people ~generally assume~ to be scientific. There are many areas of philosophy which people believe are done via science. I'd say metaphysics is a pseudoscience because people assume it's akin to physics. Most modern psychology (not all of it, and not psychiatry) is based on Freud and Lacan's psychoanalytic practice. This practice people generally assume to be scientific because their health insurance covers it, but it has no scientific basis. I'd also say some people assume political theory to be scientific, as many mistake it for economics and sociology which ~are~ scientific. Political theory is not. EDIT: Aesthetics and philosophy of mind are other areas which people mistakenly think involve neurobiology, but they don't.
- thedufer 12y agoI think you may be behind the times when it comes to psychology. Modern psychology looks down on Freud and isn't based on it at all. As of a couple of decades ago, parts of psychology would probably be well classified as pseudoscience, but that isn't the case anymore. The ~generally assume~ is an interesting bit. Dictionary definitions of the term typically go with something more like "practices which claim to be scientific". Its not terribly fair to philosophers to call them practicers of pseudoscience just because the layperson sees "physics" and assumes "metaphysics" must be science. But, then again, life isn't fair. Metaphysics is a pretty misleading name.
- JacksonGariety 12y agoModern psychology looks down on Freud almost entirely because of the advancements of Lacan in the 60s. Despite this, psychology is still ~based~ on Freud. You're right about the "generally assume" part. I had my definition wrong. But I still think it pertains to psychoanalysis specifically, because Freud definitely advertised his methods as scientific.
- innguest 12y agoI like that you're debunking Psychology for what it is, but if you still think Economics is a science, you're not quite there yet. For something to be a science it needs to make falsifiable claims. Nothing in Keynesian economics is falsifiable, and in fact following the news and watching them pulling excuses out of their hats is an endless source of entertainment to me.
- JacksonGariety 12y agoI agree with you that the hallmark of what is "scientific" is "falsifiable claims through inductive reasoning." But if this is the case, then economics and sociology are both pseudosciences; they're wrongly called "social sciences" though they are not falsifiable!
- innguest 12y ago