Skeptical of Psychology?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:16 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 01:07 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  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.
But, you haven't really answered my questions, have you. Why are you so sure psychology is above reproach?

It's quite obvious that you haven't read my posts close enough, as I was being courteous. ( I quote, "Not to imply that you are one of these people")

I want your opinion on the question. The burden of proof is on you, not on us, so you are the one who has to answer questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Quote: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 As with all fields of study, there are outdated concepts (compare medicine's Miasma theory of disease and Biology's Androgyny recapitulates Phylogeny), but, also like other fields of study, if something is outdated, it is replaced in due time with more accurate descriptions of reality.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...

^ I don't know that I'd categorize my thread as "silly", but you raise some good points.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Skepticism of Psychology sound like Skepticism of Homosexuality. You can't be skeptical of something that exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:24 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
I suppose I could have worded things more carefully. I'm skeptical of the benefits of psychology. And I'm wiling to talk about the flaws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:22 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Skepticism of Psychology sound like Skepticism of Homosexuality. You can't be skeptical of something that exists.

Creationism exists.
I am skeptical of Creationism.
Therefore, it is possible to be skeptical of something that exists.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TSG's post
04-07-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:25 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 01:22 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Skepticism of Psychology sound like Skepticism of Homosexuality. You can't be skeptical of something that exists.

Creationism exists.
I am skeptical of Creationism.
Therefore, it is possible to be skeptical of something that exists.

Good point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 01:36 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:00 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  @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.

So what?

Do you have anything at all beyond "it's not perfect" informing your views?

In what way is that a useful statement? It is stunningly trivial and the exact opposite of controversial.

"I'm skeptical of psychology" is a very vacuous, shallow statement. In what ways are you skeptical? For what reasons? What theories and methodologies do you take issue with? Are there systematic biases in the hierarchy?

So you've disagreed with a counselor. So freaking what?

"We don't understand everything" has literally no bearing on the validity of what we think we do understand. That is a wholly relevant distinction.

(04-07-2014 01:00 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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?

Because it was not a problem within the field of psychology. If you don't know the difference, that's unfortunate. I invite you to find a single credible peer-reviewed article endorsing the phenomenon as you understand it. You will fail. The pop culture moral panic in the 1980s was no more credible (then or now) than "vaccines cause autism".

Read some science.

And also learn the different between a therapist and a psychologist, as well as what is meant by a professional college and what that entails.

I have mentioned this in every response. You have ignored it every time.

(04-07-2014 01:00 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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.

Your "evidence" is bad and you should feel bad. Your refusing to listen to the numerous reasons explaining why it's bad is rather more troubling.

It's no particular skin off my back what broad swathes of modern science you choose to ignore (sorry - "be skeptical of"). But it annoys me to see people being obstinately ignorant.

How 'bout those vaccines, though, while you're at it?

... 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, 01:39 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 01:00 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  @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.

So what?

Do you have anything at all beyond "it's not perfect" informing your views?

In what way is that a useful statement? It is stunningly trivial and the exact opposite of controversial.

"I'm skeptical of psychology" is a very vacuous, shallow statement. In what ways are you skeptical? For what reasons? What theories and methodologies do you take issue with? Are there systematic biases in the hierarchy?

So you've disagreed with a counselor. So freaking what?

"We don't understand everything" has literally no bearing on the validity of what we think we do understand. That is a wholly relevant distinction.

(04-07-2014 01:00 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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?

Because it was not a problem within the field of psychology. If you don't know the difference, that's unfortunate. I invite you to find a single credible peer-reviewed article endorsing the phenomenon as you understand it. You will fail. The pop culture moral panic in the 1980s was no more credible (then or now) than "vaccines cause autism".

Read some science.

And also learn the different between a therapist and a psychologist, as well as what is meant by a professional college and what that entails.

I have mentioned this in every response. You have ignored it every time.

(04-07-2014 01:00 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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.

Your "evidence" is bad and you should feel bad. Your refusing to listen to the numerous reasons explaining why it's bad is rather more troubling.

It's no particular skin off my back what broad swathes of modern science you choose to ignore (sorry - "be skeptical of"). But it annoys me to see people being obstinately ignorant.

How 'bout those vaccines, though, while you're at it?

What I hear you saying here is "la la la, can't hear you. Psychology is perfect, always was, always has been. It's a rock-solid science. Anyone who says otherwise probably has a problem with vaccines, too.".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:39 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?

Do you have anything at all beyond "it's not perfect" informing your views?

In what way is that a useful statement? It is stunningly trivial and the exact opposite of controversial.

"I'm skeptical of psychology" is a very vacuous, shallow statement. In what ways are you skeptical? For what reasons? What theories and methodologies do you take issue with? Are there systematic biases in the hierarchy?

So you've disagreed with a counselor. So freaking what?

"We don't understand everything" has literally no bearing on the validity of what we think we do understand. That is a wholly relevant distinction.


Because it was not a problem within the field of psychology. If you don't know the difference, that's unfortunate. I invite you to find a single credible peer-reviewed article endorsing the phenomenon as you understand it. You will fail. The pop culture moral panic in the 1980s was no more credible (then or now) than "vaccines cause autism".

Read some science.

And also learn the different between a therapist and a psychologist, as well as what is meant by a professional college and what that entails.

I have mentioned this in every response. You have ignored it every time.


Your "evidence" is bad and you should feel bad. Your refusing to listen to the numerous reasons explaining why it's bad is rather more troubling.

It's no particular skin off my back what broad swathes of modern science you choose to ignore (sorry - "be skeptical of"). But it annoys me to see people being obstinately ignorant.

How 'bout those vaccines, though, while you're at it?

What I hear you saying here is "la la la, can't hear you. Psychology is perfect, always was, always has been. It's a rock-solid science. Anyone who says otherwise probably has a problem with vaccines, too.".

IT'S NOT PERFECT! And neither is any other field of study! As I said before, it, like every other field, has flaws, but that doesn't make the whole field broken beyond repair. It's told us all we know about the brain, and helps with the treatment of psychotic disorders.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TSG's post
04-07-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:39 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  What I hear you saying here is "la la la, can't hear you. Psychology is perfect, always was, always has been. It's a rock-solid science. Anyone who says otherwise probably has a problem with vaccines, too.".

Indeed.

In which case you're hearing things I didn't say.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: