| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
Quote: anecdotal evidence is another earmark of pseudo science Quote: so the experts need to agree otherwise it's wasted time as opposed to the 'hard sciences' in which the work is done prior to the expert review process and refutation can begin... os in essence it's just the opposite in process than the hard sciences... no wonder they call one a hard science and the other soft, though I believe that should be changed to 'easy science'
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,914 Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour |
| ||||||
Quote: What do you mean? No science can control every variable because we are not in control of the variables that exist. The best we can do is create an artificial environment with the variables we want, present. This is true in every science I know of, and that includes psychology. Can you provide an experiment that has uncontrolled variables you believe to be influencing the findings, yet is ignored by the experimenter? I mean, physics experiments are not always performed in a vaccuum because such a level of control is unnecessary. That's because certain factors are not believed to be responsible for the effect being studied and therefore do not need to be controlled. This is how psychology works as well. There will always be elements present that are not controlled for, but that is because they are not believed to be at play in the effect being studied. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,914 Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't know why you think this proves your case Pris. You can pick and choose what you want from psychology, but it's a part of a process and does not represent much of anything about the whole to do so. Quote: I'm not intimately familiar with other sciences but I doubt the process is any different. No graduate student is going to be provided with funding or resources without faculty members first reviewing a proposed experiment. It requires the experts OK before anything can move forward so as to not waste time and resources. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Perhaps you're refering to the norm within psychology investigations, which I would imagine would be a limit to the applicability of the investigation rather than the results themselves. It isn't hte reationaship between the experimental groups/controls that is difficult to draw, its difficult to show the results are worth a damn generally, which is essentially one of the big problems with psychology as a science: its hard. The qualitative study itself is easy: bunch of people randomly split. Hit experimental group with clubs, then ask em how they feel. They'll feel worse than the control group. Bingo: simple experiment proving clubbing makes people feel bad. That this conclusion is limited to the typicality of the group when applied to the general populas is true, but this is a problem with application rather than the study itself. Quote: This is all a side issue. The science itself isn't so difficult, its trying to obtain results that are worth anything: generally these means they should be broadly applicable to allow insight into as many systems as possible. I agree it will be difficult as a practice to obtain such information of broad applicability and that challenges will be made, but again, this isn't a limit of qualitative invetigation, only the nature of hte beast: people are pretty variable, i.e. some like to get beat with clubs, some might enjoy it in particular situations, et cet. Its this complexity of the subject and aims that's the problem, not the qualitative study or methodology itself. Quote: Doesn't affect the validity of the science. If something is demonstrated, it is such regardless of the agreement of others. Legitimate resistance will be a result of lack of knowledge requiring conjecture and presumptions that may be more tenuous than normal, but this should be plain to the proponent as well as the critics. The disagreement is over conjecture rather than the science: one side just thinks the conjecture more reasonable than the others. Quote: How so? What is science for? To demonstrate relationships between phenomena, things in the world. You certainly want those things proven. The club beating example at minimum proves those people don't like to get beat by clubs in that fasion. Quote: Sure, if you don't study something you don't get information on it. Much of psychology is trying to use knowledge about one system to inform upon a more complicated system. This is just a limit of applying specific knowledge to the general case, rather than pertaining to qualitative research in general. The same thing is true with any research, it just so happens that people are weird and you can't expect what's true for one group to be true for another, which is why the studies tend to focus on a particular application and make the results as informative for that application as possible, using people typical of the group for which you hope to apply the data to. Quote: Sure, but this isn't because of the innate worth of people's opinions, only the result of the trust you place in them having credible opinions. Just like an appeal to authority is a fallacy but doesn't mean the authority is not useful: generally your knowledge is limited and it makes sense to assume others are correct to avoid the waste of time you mention. The fact remains: those opinions are not neccesarily valuable, its the scientific justification, the logic behind them, that is hopefully worth something.
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,914 Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour |
| ||||||
Quote: Qualitative analyses don't require a control/experimental group. They can use a single sample of a specialized population and analyze the information gained. Again, the goal is not to prove anything. It's utilizing what has already been shown and applying it in a qualitative way to see what turns up in a sample. Once again, it is not designed to prove anything. It is not about subjective level of distress from being hit by a club. That would most easily be set up as a quantitative experiment where participants rate their level of distress on a lickert scale and participants who were hit's level of distress is compared to participants who were not hit. The experimental group would be expected to be higher, and statistical analysis would be used to assess whether or not it was significantly higher. This is quantitative though and not qualitative. And it is difficult to produce a sound quantitative experiment. Quote: Agreed. What is being discussed in this thread is a facet of the science of psychology. A part of a process. And IMO the experts are key to ensuring this particular facet is useful and not wasted time. This facet is NOT science. It's like taking the scientific method, highlighting hypothesis formation, and then saying that ensuring the hypothesis is strong does not affect the validity of the scientific method. Of course it doesn't. But it sure does cut down on the use of crap hypotheses which turn up crap results. Qualitative analysis are what help ensure a strong qualitative hypothesis. They prove nothing, but they inform the creation of a hypothesis. And they are best at informing quantitative hypothesis when the analysis is effectively created. And the analysis is best created when multiple experts weigh in, because there is a huge knowledge base out there. Most graduate students use existing analyses to inform quantitative experimentation. It is very rare for a graduate student to try and create a unique set of qualitative data that will go to further quantitative research down the line. IMO there is a lot of misunderstanding of what qualitative research really is. Quote: Psychology is the science. Qualitative analysis is a tool utilized by the science, it is not the totality of the science. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/11/03 Posts: 29,258 |
| ||||||
Quote: Ha, my therapist said that to me once. I disagree. I think Psychology is very much a science. Counseling and therapy however, are not. The distinction between the two is key.
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,914 Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour |
| ||||||
|
Therapy is becoming more and more scientific. For a long time there were no standardized forms of treatments. With the advent of cognitive-behavioral treatments that has shifted significantly. It used to be "art" because there are a lot of therapeutic tools out there and the clinician needs to pick the tool that best applies for any particular client. Like picking the right brush to create the effect you want on a painting, a good clinician will choose the right therapeutic tool for the presenting needs.
But as standardized treatments emerge that can be experimentally tested for efficacy, this is changing. Choosing a therapy that has not been shown to be efficacious becomes a moral gray area. Using something shown effective across many samples should win out, standardizing the treatment of many disorders and removing the "art" aspect. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It's getting better. 30 years ago I was completely disgusted with it. Normal Psych, Abnormal Psych, Developmental Psych, some other garbage I forget...all crap. Physiological, linguistic and behavioral, fine. The rest? Unsubstantiated and useless. As a reliable predictor, and that is the sine qua non of scientific endeavor, they were fucking useless.
| |||||||
|
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
Quote: Proponents of pseudoscience often claim that scientific testing is not the best way to test their claim; there is something special about the claim that makes it different to other disciplines. Quote: Pseudoscience is characterized by a complete lack of viable explicit mechanisms of action for the object being studied. Even if we were to accept some instances as fact, there is still no clear idea how these mechanisms would work or how they could work. Yet we are expected to believe the claims from psychology Quote: A crucial problem with many pseudoscientific ideas is that they cannot be tested in any meaningful way, making use of the anecdotal evidence, This can come about because what is being claimed is so nebulous and vague it is difficult to conceive of how one would test it. Also, such vagueness facilitates a legion of ‘possible’ interpretations where just about anything could be made to fit the outcome to support the original claim. If a claim or theory cannot be tested then it cannot be falsified and thus it violates a central principle of science We can call this 'new' science what ever we want, referring to it as a soft science is little more than a means of articulating it as pseudoscience, in essence if the field cant conform to modern scientific methodology then create a new category and new definitions to peddle the snake oil
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: This is what i was getting at. Psychology isn't neccesarily a pseudoscience, it can be done scientifically, but the practice is often relatively unscientific. Counseling is a good example: how much of the counselor's behavior, decisions, are justified by scientific evidence and how much is just tradition or what they imagine would work best? Counseling isn't alone in this, though: other areas of psychological applications suffer the same problem. Using pscyhology to motivate someone to make a decision, as in a buisness or employment sense. Generally the data for the particular case is poor and the group the study investigated has very large differences from the person you're seeking to influence, understand Quote: Nothing requires a control group. I don't see how this fact limits my reasoning which demonstrated a simple experiment proving the experimental hypothesis qualitatively. I don't see how you've provided any reasoning justifying your claim that qualitative analyses's goal "isn't to prove anything": that's a very important and useful application such invetigations are often used in. Its probably what most people think of when imagining what science is: proving something from an experiment or showing something is or is not related to something else. I don't see any argument justifying that qualitative analysis isn't for proving things, doesn't have that goal. It certainly can, and these applications are useful. Quote: And yet that's not what I supposed. That such an investigation might have been done another way doesn't have anything to say about the invalidity of the example I proffered. Even the collection of data in the way you mention may be used to draw qualitative conclusions- its generally how such things are done in chemistry where some machinery is used, for example, to determine if an analyte is or is not present. Quote: How is the fact that results must be signifigant for statistical validity to attach diagnostic of whether the study is qualitative or quantitative? Qualitative determinations always are reached despite uncertainty existing: the very act of saying something is or is not so is to say that the chance of the null hypothesis being true is sigifigantly diminutive that it is not considered. There is not other way to reach conclusions but through such arbitrary definitions of the acceptable level of confidence. Quote: I don't see how the fact that psychology is not in toto qualitative investigation means that the latter can be accurately said to "not be for" proving something. I've given examples of how such can be used to usefully prove things. Its practical and done: the notion of some method being "for" something or other seems artificial at its core. Any use is acceptable provided it is justified, and qualitative analysis may certainly be used justifiably to proven things, as I have demonstrated.
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,914 Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour |
| ||||||
|
Communication is not happening with you Pris, so remain assured of your claims even though they make no sense to me. You're trying to make qualitative analysis out to be something it isn't. You call it pseudo-science, even though no experimental psychologist would use it as evidence of anything but a testable hypothesis. And you do this without addressing any of my questions
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,914 Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour |
| ||||||
Quote: I may be speaking from inexperience, but I do not know of any qualitative research that has been used as proof of anything. It certainly informs decisions, but it isn't proof of anything and in psychology it is not intended to be used as such. If you can provide me with an example of qualitative research findings that are claimed as proof, I'll certainly change my tune. Quote: I know it's not. But I don't rightly know what you did suppose. Can you explain how this experiment would be set up qualitatively? What are the qualities being examined and how are they used to show anything? I can't imagine a qualitative design being used for that investigation. It makes no sense to me. So please clear it up. Quote: I was just following the process through to the end. Qualitative data can use statistics if one quantifies the information. And this quantification is a natural process for anyone looking to proceed with a future controlled quantitative experiment. But just because one can quantify qualitative data does not mean it has the validity that a controlled quantitative experiment will have. Quote: Can you quote and bold your examples? I don't see them. I see hypothetical experiments that make no sense to me from a qualitative point of view. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Shroomery's #1 Spellir Registered: 02/04/08 Posts: 40,372 Loc: SF Bay Area |
| ||||||
Quote:Why would that mean that this should be a really stupid discussion? I have absolutely no idea why you're so averse to providing evidence for your claims. Quote:I also provided a different study that had different figures; the burden of proof is on you, you are the one with the fringe belief that psychology is a pseudoscience. Quote:No, I'm saying that what many people consider to be evidence, you for some reason consider to be conjecture--this is a fringe belief, as not many people consider the evidence which backs up psychological theories to be mere conjecture. Quote:Psychology Quote: Quote:I'm not refuting anything here, in fact I'm agreeing with you; some conjectures in soft science may be unprovable with experiments and other research. This doesn't mean that all, or even most theories in psychology may be unprovable with experiments and other research; if you are making the claim that they are, then the burden of proof is on you. Quote:Source? The second study I provided showed that 50-60% of alcoholics had at least one alcoholic parent. Quote:Many of Freud's theories are no longer considered valid, in fact he even replaced some of his own theories with others during his lifetime--are you really unaware of this? Do I really need to provide an example? Quote: ![]() Psychology - Qualitative and quantitative research Quote: Did you not read this the first time I posted it, or are you just having trouble understanding what it means? ![]() Quote: ![]() Psychology Quote: Did you not read this the first time I posted it, or are you just having trouble understanding what it means? ![]() Quote:Psychologists aren't the only ones that dispute the characterization of their discipline as being pseudoscientific; all social scientists agree on its validity as a science, or else it would not be considered a social science. Again, if you think psychology is a pseudocience because it is a social science (which is considered to be soft science), then you are discounting the scientific validity of anthropology, archaeology, business administration, criminology, economics, geography, linguistics, political science, sociology, international relations, communication, and, in some contexts, history, and law. Also, you have not explained why you believe that the evidence which is used to back up theories in psychology is mere conjecture; that is what your entire argument rests upon, and you have failed to demonstrate it. What's kind of ironic here is that your assertions are mere conjecture, you have provided absolutely no sources for your claims.
-------------------- Edited by Poid (03/28/11 06:03 AM)
| |||||||
|
Ancient Aliens Registered: 05/21/07 Posts: 15,105 Loc: Out of this worl Last seen: 12 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Isn't this more of an argument against the funding of research than the field itself? --------------------
| |||||||
|
irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 37,847 |
| ||||||
|
the first part of science is conjecture
(hypothesis) it is very important as a driving force towards experimental studies. as it develops nuggets of "reproducible fact revelations" through experimentation, it becomes accepted into a branch of science. people hang very tightly to the "reproducible fact revelations" and how those tie together with other science, before adopting the conjectures as theoretical truths. all the way through this process it is a scientific endeavor, even before widespread acceptance.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I certainly do discount the scientific validity of most of what goes on in those (in)disciplines.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/11/03 Posts: 29,258 |
| ||||||
|
I would not consider many of those fields to be science.
| |||||||
|
Ancient Aliens Registered: 05/21/07 Posts: 15,105 Loc: Out of this worl Last seen: 12 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
What specifically do have a problem with in anthropology?
Also why must be discounted because it doesn't follow the scientific method? what the hell does the scientific method have to do with law? --------------------
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Cultural anthropology, for one. Don't get me wrong, some of it is scientific. But some of it is not. Quote: Nothing. Or business administration.
| |||||||
|
Coming at ya Registered: 04/03/07 Posts: 2,743 Loc: Knowhere |
| ||||||
Quote: Yeah it's becoming "more" scientific, which is a good thing with respect to evidence based practice and all, but it has a very long way to go and as such I agree with DC about therapy being more of an art (greater differences in treatment effectiveness exist between therapists of the same theoretical orientation (i.e. CBT) than between groups of different theoretical orientations (i.e CBT vs interpersonal approach), even in standardised manual based treatments (Teyber & McClure, 2011)). CBT is an interesting one because it seems that it's "success" may be more representative of the advocacy of its supporters whose research leaves me wondering whether they ever bothered to control for researcher bias. In other words, when the researcher believes in and is an advocate for the therapy they are researching, then the results suspiciously support their beliefs. The same thing is happening with ACT in the last 5 to 10 years.. As far as research aspects of psychology not related to therapy, they're very much a science and the study is performed in the same way as you'd expect from any other scientific discipline. On a slightly different angle... Is theoretical physics a science? --------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Psychology & Seeing Clearly ( |
5,274 | 70 | 12/10/09 05:40 PM by akira_akuma | ||
![]() |
Psychology as a whole- Do you buy it? ( |
11,502 | 192 | 05/05/09 09:43 AM by daytripper23 | ||
![]() |
Schools of Thought in Psychology | 6,281 | 8 | 08/06/10 11:46 PM by AnxietyDrive | ||
![]() |
A psychologists opinion......... on myself? ( |
2,097 | 24 | 10/07/08 01:34 PM by Rahz | ||
![]() |
Psychology Psucks ( |
2,413 | 29 | 10/14/09 10:11 AM by youbreakyoubuy | ||
![]() |
Psychological study on the potential for evil in people ( |
3,746 | 42 | 09/14/10 02:14 AM by Psilosyth | ||
![]() |
Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... ( |
4,794 | 70 | 12/22/09 02:38 PM by Kickle | ||
![]() |
Psychology/Philosophy basics.... ( |
2,371 | 27 | 08/09/09 04:53 AM by Middleman |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 2,979 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




_ 


