Skeptical of Psychology?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2014, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 10:42 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 09:48 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I can see what's going on here. Many have this a priori assumption that religions are bad, but psychology is good. So, you can't argue your position effectively.

No, that's in no way a cogent response to what I pointed out. But thanks for trying?

Do you know how professional accreditation and certification work? Do you know how consensus develops and evolves? Do you know how medical literature operates? Do you know how correlates and causation are explored? Do you know how psychological models are developed and tested?

No, you don't. But you have a prejudicial opinion that you don't want to change.

That mental health sciences are a large and developing field is, in and of itself, evidence enough. This is because it is a scientific enterprise. "But lots of people can believe false things, therefore this might be false", you say. Okay, then. But that is a flawed comparison, because the tenets of science are self-correction and re-examination. "People believe religion, therefore they can believe other false things. I don't believe in psychology/geology/biology/cosmology/medice/whatever, therefore it is false, therefore it is like religion for those who do believe it" is a staggeringly disingenuous thing to say. It either belies ignorance as to how scientific communities actually function, or else it takes refuge in deranged claims of conspiracy. Which do you espouse?

(04-07-2014 09:48 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  So, the bad people who convinced their clients that they had been abused, when in fact they had not been, weren't really in the field of psychology? That's called the no true Scottsman fallacy.

Oh, so we're just going to pretend that unaccredited therapists and and licensed, regulated psychologists are the same thing, are we?

That's a composition fallacy, by the way; it goes well with the false choice and continuum fallacy you tried earlier...

(04-07-2014 09:48 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  What else do you have?

Perhaps you should read my previous posts?

(04-07-2014 09:48 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Why is it you are so convinced that the field of psychology is above reproach, when we skeptics have a history of looking at everything with skepticism? Why is psychology off limits? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You know it works because you know it works.

I did not say anything like that it was above reproach. So, straw man to boot. That's almost bingo!

Since you don't know how it works, I fail to see why your opinion should be privileged.

Remember what I said about science denial in other fields. To make an ill-informed premature conclusion ("it is bad", where relevant medical analogies might be vaccines, or retrovirals for HIV), and to "support" that through post-hoc anomaly hunting ("there was once an incident in which it was bad") is the methodology of a crank.

I do not wish to believe that you are a crank.

(04-07-2014 09:48 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Have you read Olive Sacks book, Hallucinations? He recounts a story about how some volunteers walked into emergency rooms and told someone there that they heard a voice say "bang" and then "thump" (if I recall correctly). They wanted to see how the mental health field would treat them. They lied about hearing the voices, but they were otherwise in perfectly good mental health, and gave accurate histories (no mental illness). What do you suppose happened to the volunteers?

Do you know the actual details of that story? It is an offhand reference to Rosenhan's work, which by the way happened in 1973. So clearly that's timely. The participants were diagnosed, but they were also released after a few weeks because symptoms had "stopped" (they stopped faking them almost immediately). But your other example was not only inapplicable but occurred a generation ago, so it's in keeping.

I see, too, that you ignore the actual main thesis of Sacks's work, which was actual neurology and psychology. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
04-07-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Srsly bro.

Feel free to be skeptical of vaccines and fluoridation while you're at it.

Good luck with that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
04-07-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Isn't psychology the study of human mentality. That is all it is. If their is a problem with it please debunk it in peer-reviewed journals please.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
04-07-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 08:22 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 07:11 AM)Rinpoche Wrote:  I don't understand how you can be skeptical of something that works and has worked consistently for a long time now.

Would you use that same line of reasoning to defend religion? Many people do.
Quote:What do you think of psychiatry, and psych meds?
If someone is getting help from psychology, psychiatry and meds, I'm all for it. I'm not saying don't participate, I'm saying be skeptical.
Doesn't the subjective nature of the "science" give you pause? It does me.

What would it take to make you believe something that was against your instincts?

Like how educated Republicans deny global warming and educated Democrats deny vaccination, purely because they think it sounds sketchy, even though they are completely unqualified to have an opinion so strong they can completely deny the thing they are misinformed on.

Not that I'm implying that you're one of these people, but what would you say to the statement, "Ignorant people have the strongest opinions"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rinpoche's post
04-07-2014, 01:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 01:06 PM by anonymous66.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
@cjlr
My points are and continue to be that the field of psychology should be viewed with caution based on the subjectivity and the problems involved. As witnessed by the Science Friday episode and the Discover article, even the experts admit there are problems in the field that aren't present in other sciences..( the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM by vote is cited as an example).

As Oliver Sacks pointed out so well in his book Hallucinations, there are some phenomena like hallucinations are poorly understood by even those in the mental health profession.

Your continued no true Scottsman argument about the recovered memory problem is troubling. Why are you refusing to admit that this was a problem within the field of psychology?

I understand that you feel strongly about the field of psychology. I can respect that. But, don't pretend that the field doesn't have it's problems... there is plenty of evidence that it does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 12:57 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 08:22 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Would you use that same line of reasoning to defend religion? Many people do.
If someone is getting help from psychology, psychiatry and meds, I'm all for it. I'm not saying don't participate, I'm saying be skeptical.
Doesn't the subjective nature of the "science" give you pause? It does me.

What would it take to make you believe something that was against your instincts?

Like how educated Republicans deny global warming and educated Democrats deny vaccination, purely because they think it sounds sketchy, even though they are completely unqualified to have an opinion so strong they can completely deny the thing they are misinformed on.

Not that I'm implying that you're one of these people, but what would you say to the statement, "Ignorant people have the strongest opinions"?

I'd say you're getting away from the true topic of this thread. How reliable is the field of psychology?

I know you say that you feel it's trustworthy. But, could you back that up with a reasonable argument?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:03 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 12:57 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  What would it take to make you believe something that was against your instincts?

Like how educated Republicans deny global warming and educated Democrats deny vaccination, purely because they think it sounds sketchy, even though they are completely unqualified to have an opinion so strong they can completely deny the thing they are misinformed on.

Not that I'm implying that you're one of these people, but what would you say to the statement, "Ignorant people have the strongest opinions"?

I'd say you're getting away from the true topic of this thread. How reliable is the field of psychology?

I know you say that you feel it's trustworthy. But, could you back that up with a reasonable argument?

I think you need to answer the Dunning-Kruger effect for us to get to the root of your distrust of psychology.

The burden of proof rests on you, and it would be far more interesting to see how you respond to my question, "Do ignorant people have the strongest opinions?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:13 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Hmm. So, you're saying that if we consider the flaws of modern psychology, then we might become the type of people who deny global warming or are anti-vaccine, or anti-flouridation.

Slippery-slope fallacy, anyone?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 01:49 PM by anonymous66.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:07 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 01:03 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I'd say you're getting away from the true topic of this thread. How reliable is the field of psychology?

I know you say that you feel it's trustworthy. But, could you back that up with a reasonable argument?

I think you need to answer the Dunning-Kruger effect for us to get to the root of your distrust of psychology.

The burden of proof rests on you, and it would be far more interesting to see how you respond to my question, "Do ignorant people have the strongest opinions?"
So, your argument is that I'm pointing out the flaws in modern psychology, so there must be something wrong with me? Noted. If you want to debate, let's debate... but please avoid ad hominems, unless you want to tell my why I shouldn't assume there is something basically wrong with yoiu.
But, you haven't really answered my questions, have you. Why are you so sure psychology is above reproach?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
[Image: 13381e9ec4c0acbdb8bd842f37df08e8.png]

What, are you skeptical of Biology as well? It's a field of study! As with all fields of study, there are outdated concepts (compare medicine's Miasma theory of disease and Biology's Androgyny recapitulates Phylogeny), but, also like other fields of study, if something is outdated, it is replaced in due time with more accurate descriptions of reality. The concept of being 'skeptical of Psychology' seems silly. I'm sure you could be skeptical of certain psychological concepts and theories, but it's a rather big jump to dismiss an entire field of study. Unless, of course, you have evidence that the mind isn't real...

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TSG's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: