Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Kickle]
    #14191516 - 03/27/11 10:50 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:

"Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied





anecdotal evidence is another earmark of pseudo science

Quote:

The agreement of experts, at least for a graduate student, is aimed at cutting down wasted time and resources. Anyone can do qualitative research, but the goal is to make it worthwhile and not a waste of time. If many experts agree that the research is on the right track with its concepts, then it is less likely that it will be fruitless long term.




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'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,914
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14191560 - 03/27/11 11:00 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
How can you possibly claim that
psychology isnt a pseudo science when it's foundation cannot be
quantifiably measured. there's no means of control or reproduction





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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,914
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14191599 - 03/27/11 11:07 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Kickle said:

"Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied





anecdotal evidence is another earmark of pseudo science





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:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

The agreement of experts, at least for a graduate student, is aimed at cutting down wasted time and resources. Anyone can do qualitative research, but the goal is to make it worthwhile and not a waste of time. If many experts agree that the research is on the right track with its concepts, then it is less likely that it will be fruitless long term.




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'




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Kickle]
    #14191635 - 03/27/11 11:14 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
I would imagine qualitative answers to be easier to arrive at in many circumstances.

Setting up a qualitative analysis is a real bear from what I gather. You have to be able to show why you are choosing the qualities you've set upon for analysis. So either by being very political, or much more likely for a graduate student, by being very very thorough in the background research.





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:

IMO it's a bold undertaking to think you have enough knowledge and understanding of so much research to be able to analyze the underlying concepts as a whole in a sample. And there will be resistance from other experts that will have to be overcome. And that doesn't happen through emotional appeals. :shrug:




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:

Kickle said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Yeah, "agreement by experts in the field" doesn't matter.





Doesn't matter for what?





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:

The goal of qualitative analysis is not to prove something.




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:


"Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only propositions (informed assertions). Quantitative methods can be used to seek empirical support for such research hypotheses."




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:

The agreement of experts, at least for a graduate student, is aimed at cutting down wasted time and resources. Anyone can do qualitative research, but the goal is to make it worthwhile and not a waste of time. If many experts agree that the research is on the right track with its concepts, then it is less likely that it will be fruitless long term.





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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,914
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: johnm214]
    #14191739 - 03/27/11 11:39 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
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. 





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:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Yeah, "agreement by experts in the field" doesn't matter.





Doesn't matter for what?





Doesn't affect the validity of the science.




Agreed. :shrug:

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:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

The goal of qualitative analysis is not to prove something.




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.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: johnm214] * 1
    #14191798 - 03/27/11 11:50 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Psychology isn't per se pseudoscience, but the manner in which it is employed is often more art than science.




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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,914
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: DieCommie]
    #14192010 - 03/27/11 12:30 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: DieCommie]
    #14192019 - 03/27/11 12:31 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Psychology isn't per se pseudoscience, but the manner in which it is employed is often more art than science.




I think Psychology is very much a science.  Counseling and therapy however, are not.  The distinction between the two is key.



:thumbup:

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.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Kickle]
    #14192093 - 03/27/11 12:46 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
How can you possibly claim that
psychology isnt a pseudo science when it's foundation cannot be
quantifiably measured. there's no means of control or reproduction





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.




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:

Kickle said:
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.




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:

Kickle said:
Psychology is the science. Qualitative analysis is a tool utilized by the science, it is not the totality of the science.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Kickle]
    #14192135 - 03/27/11 12:56 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Psychology isn't per se pseudoscience, but the manner in which it is employed is often more art than science.




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.





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:

Kickle said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
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. 





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.





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:

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.




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:

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.




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:

Kickle said:

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:


The goal of qualitative analysis is not to prove something.




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.




Psychology is the science. Qualitative analysis is a tool utilized by the science, it is not the totality of the science.





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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,914
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14192172 - 03/27/11 01:03 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

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 :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,914
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: johnm214]
    #14192272 - 03/27/11 01:24 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
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.





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 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:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

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.




And yet that's not what I supposed.




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:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

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.




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.




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:

johnm214 said:
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.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14193996 - 03/27/11 07:28 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
thats' not what I asked for, you seem to rely on wikipedia and google as
opposed to what you have learned.


Huh? I'm providing a source for my position, that's what's expected in this forum.




oh, so all we have to do is provide snippets and links

this should be a really stupid discussion then


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:

Prisoner#1 said:
can you give me an example as to where I'm wrong, as this subject came
from your link based on alcoholism being hereditary with only 30% of the
subjects being from families with an alcoholic surely yhat would be a
great place to start... isnt debate all about refutation of what's
presented? please feel free to refute my claims


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:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

You consider what they utilize to be conjecture, and others consider it to be decent evidence; who should I believe, and why?




are you saying that conjecture is evidence?


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:

Prisoner#1 said:
please, show these boundaries, dont just make the claim


Psychology
Quote:

Psychologists explore such concepts as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Some, especially depth psychologists, also consider the unconscious mind.





Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

...and conjectures in 'soft science' may be unprovable with experiments and other research.


Quote:

Key word 'may'.


again, show some of that wonderful wikipedia evidence to refute my claim


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:

Prisoner#1 said:
what evidence, statistical studies that show 70% of alcoholics come from
families that had no history of alcoholism in a claim that alcoholism is
hereditary?


Source? The second study I provided showed that 50-60% of alcoholics had at least one alcoholic parent.



Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Many theories in psychology have been challenged and replaced--you are incorrect.




I hear read the words but see no evidence


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:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Psychology is the science of mind and behavior; I'm providing sources for my claims, and so far you have provided nothing but your fringe opinion on the nature of the evidence that is used to support theories in the discipline of psychology.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method...


:picard:

Psychology - Qualitative and quantitative research
Quote:

Research in most areas of psychology is conducted in accord with the standards of the scientific method.



Did you not read this the first time I posted it, or are you just having trouble understanding what it means? :undecided:



Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
...lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.


:picard:

Psychology
Quote:

Psychology is the science of mind and behavior.



Did you not read this the first time I posted it, or are you just having trouble understanding what it means? :undecided:



Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science.[4] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.


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. :lol:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Edited by Poid (03/28/11 06:03 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: johnm214]
    #14195444 - 03/27/11 11:38 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
I only came across one graduate student doing a qualitative study in my University experience. It's pretty ambitious for someone to try and present qualitative data rather than quantitative. And it has it's own set of guidelines and undergoes a pretty intense review process.





What are you refering too?  I would imagine qualitative answers to be easier to arrive at in many circumstances.  Does their exist a difference between the expiremental group and the control group? If so, then you've got your answer.  What's difficult about that?



As for psychology, I would agree that as practiced clinically its a bunch of bullshit in many cases without much solid evidence.

Psychology isn't per se pseudoscience, but the manner in which it is employed is often more art than science.  The reasons for this may be many, some of which discussed herein, but it doesn't really matter.

Personally I was shocked to discover how much bullshit psychology is clinically in many cases.


Sociology, in my opinion, is the real stinker:  all the bad parts of psychology plus the nefarious influence of ready-made political consequences to be argued from whatever result makes it a bunch of crap.  Generally the studies they do are pretty poorly applicable to real world applications they are used for.



Isn't this more of an argument against the funding of research than the field itself?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,847
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: learningtofly] * 1
    #14196374 - 03/28/11 05:44 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

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.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Poid]
    #14197152 - 03/28/11 10:45 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:

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.




I certainly do discount the scientific validity of most of what goes on in those (in)disciplines.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: zappaisgod]
    #14197162 - 03/28/11 10:47 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I would not consider many of those fields to be science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: zappaisgod]
    #14197171 - 03/28/11 10:48 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

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?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: learningtofly]
    #14197221 - 03/28/11 11:00 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

learningtofly said:
What specifically do have a problem with in anthropology?




Cultural anthropology, for one.  Don't get me wrong, some of it is scientific.  But some of it is not.
Quote:



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?




Nothing.  Or business administration.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMufungo
Coming at ya
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,743
Loc: Knowhere
Re: Psychology is a pseudoscience [Re: Kickle]
    #14202246 - 03/29/11 04:08 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
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.




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?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Psychology & Seeing Clearly
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Chronic7 5,274 70 12/10/09 05:40 PM
by akira_akuma
* Psychology as a whole- Do you buy it?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
skatealex2 11,502 192 05/05/09 09:43 AM
by daytripper23
* Schools of Thought in Psychology AnxietyDrive 6,281 8 08/06/10 11:46 PM
by AnxietyDrive
* A psychologists opinion......... on myself?
( 1 2 all )
Foothill 2,097 24 10/07/08 01:34 PM
by Rahz
* Psychology Psucks
( 1 2 all )
LunarEclipse 2,413 29 10/14/09 10:11 AM
by youbreakyoubuy
* Psychological study on the potential for evil in people
( 1 2 3 all )
blissedout 3,746 42 09/14/10 02:14 AM
by Psilosyth
* Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Poid 4,794 70 12/22/09 02:38 PM
by Kickle
* Psychology/Philosophy basics....
( 1 2 all )
Corrie 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 ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.