Is psychology science?

[j654dgj7]

Not true the psychaitrist PD Laing took schizophrenic women out of their environment and found they returned back to 'normal'. Once they were returned to their enviornment they lapsed back into 'schizophrenia'

I'm not aware of his works, but just a few things. If you're a psychiatrist saying that you can cure schizophrenic women by taking them out of their environment, you better have done it to thousands of women. You better not have done anything to control them. You better not have given them any psychological help on them. I don't trust for one second that he did these things. Also, I'm incredibly offended that you're categorizing all mental illnesses into one. It goes to show that you've never had to deal with it, or a person dealing with it.

Also how do you know to what extent something is hereditary in the sense of being in the DNA coding rather than the people greowing up in the same environment (eg culture) and therefore being affected the same way?

Because of science. Science tells you what is hereditary and what isn't. Doctors looking at the brain. If you can't accept that doctors might know these things, then I can't debate that part of this any further.

Let me be clear: I agree that culture is incredibly important and incredibly unhealthy right now. Some diseases are just hereditary and not caused by your environment.

 

[j654dgj7]

Of course its relevant

if you are someone who is trying to discearn whether or not people are introverted or extroverted then all your experiences are going to inform your opinion

Sure you can do a contained little study with controls and such like but that isn't the full extent of your lifes research

What does it matter how many people they met? Should every study have a head-count on how many people they've talked to ever along with their names and phone numbers?

Can you tell me what you are made up of on a quantum level? Are you made of particles or waveform?

Oh this argument.

Just ask the scientists at the cutting edge of quantum mechanics what they think of the history of science

Thanks for the debate!

 

[muir]

I'm not aware of his works, but just a few things. If you're a psychiatrist saying that you can cure schizophrenic women by taking them out of their environment, you better have done it to thousands of women. You better not have done anything to control them. You better not have given them any psychological help on them. I don't trust for one second that he did these things. Also, I'm incredibly offended that you're categorizing all mental illnesses into one. It goes to show that you've never had to deal with it, or a person dealing with it.

You should look into his work..its cheap and readily available

Because of science. Science tells you what is hereditary and what isn't. Doctors looking at the brain. If you can't accept that doctors might know these things, then I can't debate that part of this any further.

Let me be clear: I agree that culture is incredibly important and incredibly unhealthy right now. Some diseases are just hereditary and not caused by your environment.

'Science' doesn't even know what makes up our reality

Watch Lucy Jrs videos to find out what doctors can know by looking at the brain

 

[muir]

What does it matter how many people they met? Should every study have a head-count on how many people they've talked to ever along with their names and phone numbers?

As i explained earlier science can be skewed if you don;t take into account all factors....i gave the example of a happiness study being carreid out that doesn't take inot account that one of the sample groups have just been through war

There are many things that can skew our perceptions of reality

Oh this argument.

Quite an important one wouldn't you say?

Thanks for the debate!

They can't agree on anything!

 

[muir]

Ok lets do an experiment

We will take you for a week and put you on a sunny beach resort where you can stay in 5 star accomodation with a companion of your choice. You can use all the facilities for free, get a massage, swim in the pool, use the gym and the sauna, eat in the high end restaurant every day and so on

Then we will give you a survey and ask you some questions about how you feel

Then we will take you for a week and throw you in a stinking dungeon with white noise going 24/7 so that you can't sleep. We'll feed you on bread and water and occiasionally make very loud noises to upset your nerves

Then at the end of the week we will survey you and ask you how you feel

If however you say that you are happy in one environment and unhappy in the other environment then we will have to diagnose you with some sort of disorder because the environment is not important....its just a chemical imbalance in your brain

 

[say what]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5601]vandyke[/MENTION]

I think you two are both commenting on extremely valid and important points.

Disease or mental illness isn't as black and white as having or not having it.

For many, it is an accumulation of stressor from social, personal, biological, chemical and environmental systems.

Muir brings up a great point that our environment is a major stressor and contributor to our wellbeing. We're living in significantly different environments than what our mind, brain, and body evolved and adapted too. Thus, we are experience a range of stimuli daily that impacts us on psychological and physiological levels - work from Wilson, Ulrich, Kaplan, Hartig, and many others have scientifically found this to be true.

On the flip side, there is a lot of evidence that supports biological and chemical differences in our brains between individuals with and without mental illnesses. I actually think you are both agreeing that - muir is saying that it may be because of our environment (which, is true, there are changes in our brain from being in stressful urban environments), but there are also genetic properties and chemical differences between people in the same environment. Therefore, while we know that changing our environment might be helpful for some, it might not be helpful enough. This is why psychological treatments are often a mixture of behaviour therapy, lifestyle changes, and medication - a triad of changes to best help an individual to manage the array of stressors they face. This is also what each treatment is done on an individual bases- because we're all different.

On a micro scale, medication and therapy helps, because on a macro scale, it's just not reasonably possible to change our environments.

As far as the videos on lobotomies and electrotherapy - they have a very dark history. However - we only see the most extreme cases. There are MANY cases where these treatments work and people are able to enjoy their life. On an individual by individual case, these treatments have been very successful- but today, they are often the last resort - it's only when medication, therapy, environmental changes, etc. are tried, that they don't work.

Again, in medicine we've seen surgery be performed for horrible things- but we didn't discounts the benefits of surgery when it's done under the right conditions and the right purposes!

 

[j654dgj7]

You should look into his work..its cheap and readily available

Clever! You see, the difference is that I didn't claim to know everything about him. I'm just saying that you're choosing to believe what he's saying because he's saying what you want to hear. I didn't pick out facts that supported my opinion.

I get your "science doesn't know everything" argument, but that's the oldest argument in the book. You're saying that if the theory doesn't explain everything down to molecule level, it's not valid and therefore your theory is just as valid. It's not true and I find it incredible that you would even attempt to pass off your theory as something to be taken as seriously as what 500 years of science has amounted to. 500 years of testing, failing, thinking, trying out things, experimenting, thinking outside of the box. Your theory against science is like a chip of a tree versus all of the trees of the world. It's not as valid because it's an opinion. You can't prove it because your mind is made up, so as soon as you would start, you would find out that you were wrong.

Example: You think the world is holographic. You touch another person and that person exists right in front of you. Your whole theory is disproven.

 

[muir]

Even the chemical aspect often falls into the environment column

We are being bombarded with stuff. There's new chemicals in the food, in the water, in the air and so on that we are not adapted to be absorbing

We have fuckwits like TEPCO pumping radiation into our enviornment in Fukishima

We have the aluminium industry putting their waste product flouride in our drinking water

We have big pharma injecting us with vaccines with mercury and aluminium in them

We have radio frequency masts now hammering us with electro smog (we are electrical beings yes so these things will affect us. Electrical impulses passed around our bodies)

We have people being prescribed drugs from a young age

We have a pharmaceutical industry that is profit driven and therefore doesn't want to heal people because to heal people would be to destroy their market so they create people with chronic conditions that must by and use their products for life. This also works with physical goods...they are now built with 'inbuilt obsolescence' so that they break within a certain timeframe so that the consumer must then go and buy another one; nothings built to last anymore

We have 'climate scientists' sparying chemicals into the air for 'solar radiation management'

Our foods are sprayed with toxic pesticides which are also killing the bees

Our livestock are fed on antibiotics and growth hormones whch get into the meat. Some cows were even fed meal made from cows leading to 'mad cow disease' because for some reason the corporations thought it would a good idea to stray from nature and stop feeding cows grass and to instead feed them ground up dead cows...well that's just fucking ingenious isn't it?

We are being hammered constantly both physically and mentally in ways that most people aren't even perceiving and people are wondering why they feel off balance?

Does the system help them find balance? No it hits them with more chemicals...cocktails of chemicals until the desired result is achieved: which is to say the subject has shut the fuck up

 

[j654dgj7]

Even the chemical aspect often falls into the environment column

We are being bombarded with stuff. There's new chemicals in the food, in the water, in the air and so on that we are not adapted to be absorbing

We have fuckwits like TEPCO pumping radiation into our enviornment in Fukishima

We have the aluminium industry putting their waste product flouride in our drinking water

We have big pharma injecting us with vaccines with mercury and aluminium in them

We have radio frequency masts now hammering us with electro smog (we are electrical beings yes so these things will affect us. Electrical impulses passed around our bodies)

We have people being prescribed drugs from a young age

We have a pharmaceutical industry that is profit driven and therefore doesn't want to heal people because to heal people would be to destroy their market so they create people with chronic conditions that must by and use their products for life. This also works with physical goods...they are now built with 'inbuilt obsolescence' so that they break within a certain timeframe so that the consumer must then go and buy another one; nothings built to last anymore

We have 'climate scientists' sparying chemicals into the air for 'solar radiation management'

Our foods are sprayed with toxic pesticides which are also killing the bees

Our livestock are fed on antibiotics and growth hormones whch get into the meat. Some cows were even fed meal made from cows leading to 'mad cow disease' because for some reason the corporations thought it would a good idea to stray from nature and stop feeding cows grass and to instead feed them ground up dead cows...well that's just fucking ingenious isn't it?

We are being hammered constantly both physically and mentally in ways that most people aren't even perceiving and people are wondering why they feel off balance?

Does the system help them find balance? No it hits them with more chemicals...cocktails of chemicals until the desired result is achieved: which is to say the subject has shut the fuck up

People have been mentally ill since there have been people. Your theory is invalid.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific methodology includes the following:
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

ALL in accordance with what we have the ABILITY to do as humans.

 

[muir]

Clever! You see, the difference is that I didn't claim to know everything about him. I'm just saying that you're choosing to believe what he's saying because he's saying what you want to hear. I didn't pick out facts that supported my opinion.

I haven't claimed to know everything about him either

I get your "science doesn't know everything" argument, but that's the oldest argument in the book. You're saying that if the theory doesn't explain everything down to molecule level, it's not valid and therefore your theory is just as valid. It's not true and I find it incredible that you would even attempt to pass off your theory as something to be taken as seriously as what 500 years of science has amounted to. 500 years of testing, failing, thinking, trying out things, experimenting, thinking outside of the box. Your theory against science is like a chip of a tree versus all of the trees of the world. It's not as valid because it's an opinion. You can't prove it because your mind is made up, so as soon as you would start, you would find out that you were wrong.

I'm not trying to pass off anything

Think about it...what we are talking abotu is fundamental to everything. If there is no consciousness beyond the brain then we are a form of biological robot

If there is consciousness beyond the brain then our entire conception of how we perceive things and how we engage with this reality would change

It's key to everything we are talking about here

Example: You think the world is holographic. You touch another person and that person exists right in front of you. Your whole theory is disproven.

That's not what holographic means

[video=youtube;2DIl3Hfh9tY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY[/video]

 

[LucyJr]

Woman A: “You’ll feel better if you get your
anger out.”
Woman B: “Anger? Why am I angry?”
Woman A: “Because he left you, that’s why.”
Woman B: “Left me? What are you talking
about? He died. He was an old man.”
Woman A: “Yes, but to your unconscious it’s no
different from abandonment. Underneath, you are
blaming him for not keeping his obligation to you
to protect you forever.”
Woman B: “That might have been true if I were
ten years old, Margaret, but I’m forty-two, we both
knew he was dying, and we had time to make our
peace. I don’t feel angry, I feel sad. I miss him. He
was a darling father to me.”
Woman A: “Why are you so defensive? Why are
you denying your true feelings? Why are you afraid
of therapy?”
Woman B: “Margaret, you are driving me crazy.
I don’t feel angry, dammit!”
Woman A (smiling): “So why are you shouting?”

It is not entirely easy to argue with a Freudian
devotee, because disagreement is usually taken as
denial or “blocking.
Imagine what psyhiatry can do with this approach. they can literarely accuse you of anything...

 

[muir]

Woman A: “You’ll feel better if you get your
anger out.”
Woman B: “Anger? Why am I angry?”
Woman A: “Because he left you, that’s why.”
Woman B: “Left me? What are you talking
about? He died. He was an old man.”
Woman A: “Yes, but to your unconscious it’s no
different from abandonment. Underneath, you are
blaming him for not keeping his obligation to you
to protect you forever.”
Woman B: “That might have been true if I were
ten years old, Margaret, but I’m forty-two, we both
knew he was dying, and we had time to make our
peace. I don’t feel angry, I feel sad. I miss him. He
was a darling father to me.”
Woman A: “Why are you so defensive? Why are
you denying your true feelings? Why are you afraid
of therapy?”
Woman B: “Margaret, you are driving me crazy.
I don’t feel angry, dammit!”
Woman A (smiling): “So why are you shouting?”

It is not entirely easy to argue with a Freudian
devotee, because disagreement is usually taken as
denial or “blocking.
Imagine what psyhiatry can do with this approach. they can literarely accuse you of anything...

Are you sure that she doesn't have Complicated Grief Disorder (CGD)?

Because according to the people behind the DSM if you feel sad at the loss of a loved one then you have a disease.....please keep your distance in case it is contagious

In psychiatry, complicated grief disorder (CGD) is a proposed disorder for those who are significantly and functionally impaired by prolonged grief symptoms for at least one month after six months of bereavement.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is distinguished from non-impairing grief[SUP][2][/SUP] and other disorders (such as major depressive disorder[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] and posttraumatic stress disorder).[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] This disorder is currently “under review” by the DSM-5 work groups, who are considering whether there is enough evidence for it to be included in the new DSM.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complicated_grief_disorder


You know what she needs? drugs from our good friends in big pharma....drug the freak...shut her up...emotion is not allowed!

And remember: IGNORANCE is STRENGTH

 

[LucyJr]

Actually, MUUUUUCH of psychology now is this. In fact, I would argue that about 90% of it is this!



Actually, I would argue this isn't true. While Freud did have a huge impact on psychology, as well as Jung...psychology has a long history, and dates back to way before their time! Freud might have created psychoanalysis, but that's just a portion of what psychology is.

More important, it's foundations come from the same foundations that anatomy, neurology, biology, chemistry...these all have their basis in philosophy! Descartes actually is considered a fundamental influence on psychology and how we view the body and mind.

Within psychology there are many domains which are influenced by specific people or methods- but they are just a sect of psychology, and these different sect often are in tension or disagreement. So to lump all of psychology within one sect of it, is not seeing the broader picture of the discipline.



I think you highlight some important limitations to some of the work that has gone on in psychology, but much of it today is testable, quantifiable....

Do you consider neuroscience a science? Because much of neuroscience is psychology- they overlap.

What about understanding animal behaviours and how anatomy and adaptation influences group outcomes?

What about understanding the impact of an illness, such as dementia, on cognitive and/or affective functions?

What about investigating how our environment impacts our attention?

While there is a lot of psychology, such as the study of morality or happiness, that limits our understanding, again - this is just one sect of psychology So, I agree with you that studying things such as the abstract and subjective construct of the soul and the mind isn't scientific- I would also argue that psychology is much more than that!

I already said it. You people have a crazy way of drifting to sides.
There is nothing scientific in psychology today, and actualy it never was. I linked here some videos and a article. If you are interested, watch the videos and read the article.

 

[New Dawn Fades]

[...]
It is not entirely easy to argue with a Freudian
devotee, because disagreement is usually taken as
denial or “blocking.
Imagine what psyhiatry can do with this approach. they can literarely accuse you of anything...

Have you ever been to a therapist or psychiatrist? I guess not, and if so, then it must have been a psychoanalyst (which is a different thing).

However, they do have a point in asking such questions. The example you gave is ridiculous, but there have been many cases where therapists have to ask such seemingly senseless questions because they know that people often don't want to come to the core of their psychological problem. My sister is a prospective psychiatrist and she says that most of the people with big problems don't want to see them, they reject them deep into their inner. The psychiatrist sees that there is something hidden and asks them about the most common scenarios (for example, they often ask about childhood issues because they're kind of common and it's not that unlikely that they're the cause of your problem).
I don't know if what I say is clear, so I give a textbook example (no pun intended): Perks of Being a Wallflower. Charlie writes that his therapist is asking weird childhood questions and doesn't really understand what he wants... And in the end, it comes out that his therapist was right, because Charlie rejected the fact that he had been molested by his aunt that he had admired so much. Such things happen quite often.

 

[LucyJr]

Are you sure that she doesn't have Complicated Grief Disorder (CGD)?

Because according to the people behind the DSM if you feel sad at the loss of a loved one then you have a disease.....please keep your distance in case it is contagious

In psychiatry, complicated grief disorder (CGD) is a proposed disorder for those who are significantly and functionally impaired by prolonged grief symptoms for at least one month after six months of bereavement.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is distinguished from non-impairing grief[SUP][2][/SUP] and other disorders (such as major depressive disorder[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] and posttraumatic stress disorder).[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] This disorder is currently “under review” by the DSM-5 work groups, who are considering whether there is enough evidence for it to be included in the new DSM.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complicated_grief_disorder


You know what she needs? drugs from our good friends in big pharma....drug the freak...shut her up...emotion is not allowed!

And remember: IGNORANCE is STRENGTH

Noy jsu drugs, but also some electro-shocks. I don't see the reasonong behind that but.... Maaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddd doctors...

 

[LucyJr]

Complicated Grief Disorder (CGD)

When I read this, my first impression was "Oh, what a funny disorder. It must be psycho-comedy." Then I realise is something serious, and I go "Oh my/...."

 

[muir]

Noy jsu drugs, but also some electro-shocks. I don't see the reasonong behind that but.... Maaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddd doctors...

Yeah i bet they miss the good old days where they could just drill a hole in the front of peoples skulls and mash up parts of their brains....until they shut the fuck up

 

[New Dawn Fades]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

I'm sorry, but I think you two are goading each other. I don't want to pretend that everything is perfect (I also think that many diagnoses are only for..

Spoiler

fuck's

sake), but you don't have to exaggerate either. There's more than just black and white.

 

[Stu]

There is nothing scientific in psychology today, and actualy it never was.

There are several concepts in chemistry – aromaticity, hydrophobic effects, polarizability, chemical diversity – which succumb to multiple definitions and are not strictly quantifiable. Yet nobody (except perhaps certain physicists) denies that chemistry is a science. The accusation that “softer” fields are less rigorous and scientific than your own is common enough to be captured in this xkcd cartoon, but it’s more of an accusation than, well, a quantifiable truth.

Now chemical definitions are still admittedly more accurate and quantifiable than definitions of happiness or satisfaction. But the point is that not everything measurable needs to be quantifiable to the sixth decimal point to call itself scientific. What matters is whether we can come up with consistent and at least semi-quantifiable definitions that are useful enough to make testable predictions. Psychological research is useful not when it’s quantifiable but when it says something about human nature that is universal and revealing


...we still know too little about biology and social systems to achieve the kind of quantitative prediction that sciences like physics do (on the other hand, physics – depending on what kind of physicist you are talking to – does not have to deal with emergent phenomena on a routine basis). But that does not mean that everything we say about human nature is completely unquantifiable and useless...

Why can we definitively say that (psychology is not a science)? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.
I have already talked about the first two criteria and indicated that lack of clear terminology and quantifiability does not automatically consign a field to the bin of pseudoscience. The third criterion is actually interesting and important and it’s not completely clear how to get around it. Since human beings are not electrons, it’s indeed very hard to do an experiment with them and get the exact same results every single time. But that is why psychology relies heavily on statistics, to determine precisely whether the variability in results are due to chance or whether they reflect a real difference between samples. Admittedly this is a limitation that psychology will always have, but again, that does not mean it will preclude it from ever being useful. That’s because as Melanie accurately notes, even fields like particle physics rely heavily on statistics these days. Nobody observed the Higgs boson directly, it was only visible through the agency of complex tests of statistical significance. And yet particle physics has always been regarded as the “purest” science, even by other physicists.


....Contrary to popular belief, in science understanding is at least as or more important than prediction. And psychological studies have definitely provided some understanding of how human beings behave under certain circumstances. It has helped us understand questions like: Why do smart people believe weird things? Why do otherwise decent people turn into monsters under certain circumstances (the banality of evil)? What is the basis of the bystander effect in which empathetic people don’t come forward to stop a crime? Psychology has provided intriguing clues and explanations in all these areas, even if those explanations are not one-hundred percent reproducible and quantifiable. Is this science? Well, it’s not a science like physics, but why should physics be the yardstick for measuring the “sciencyness” of various fields?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...chology-a-real-science-does-it-really-matter/