Skeptical of Psychology?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2014, 08:14 AM
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?

So, anytime anyone in the field of psychology does anything wrong, then you just claim that aren't really practicing psychology. Got it. You realize that is the definition of the No True Scottsman fallacy, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 11:41 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  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.

To sum up, I think it's wise to be honest with the problems in the field of psychology. Because of the reasons I've already listed, we should also view the field with caution.

In regards to peer-reviewed journals... I think you're right. If a counselor suggests that the personality test they gave me is to be trusted, I should probably ask them to prove it with evidence from peer-reviewed journals.

My opponents are caught up in ad-hominems and no true scottsman fallacies. I suppose it is their right, but perhaps we all should take a more honest look at the field, instead of just trusting anything we hear from a supposed practitioner of psychology. That skepticism might have helped those caught up in the recovered memory craze.

I personally wish everyone in the field was more like Oliver Sacks. I've read several of his books, and his book Hallucinations dealt honestly with the negative ways those who have experienced hallucinations have been treated. He's also quite honest with his own flaws and faults, and has several very personal stories in the book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2014, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2014 08:37 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(06-07-2014 08:14 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  So, anytime anyone in the field of psychology does anything wrong, then you just claim that aren't really practicing psychology. Got it. You realize that is the definition of the No True Scottsman fallacy, right?

Are you trying to misunderstand me?

You're trying very hard to make that fallacy accusation fit, but it will not.

If you refuse to listen to explanation and persist in composition fallacy, that is your prerogative. I have asked you for a credible source on the repressed memory hysteria. I have provided recent citations explaining why it does not hold up. If you wish to claim it was more than a pop culture spasm then you must demonstrate it. This is not peer-reviewed science. I can only hope that you understand the difference.

If you likewise refuse to accept the difference between "therapist" and "psychologist" then that is another of your problems. That distinction exists. "Therapist" is not a protected term in the United States. There is no body of standards. There is no accreditation. I will ask for what seems the thousandth time: do you understand what a professional college is? Psychologists have one. Psychiatrists have one. Therapists and counselors do not.

By all means, we may review your, er, "evidence". This begins with two vague claims, "it is not perfect" (!!!) and "the DSM is flawed". We have covered these previously. The first is trivial and meaningless; the second is accepted unanimously - but any actual criticism would involve specifics.

You then mentioned two tangentially related things. Rosenhan's studies - which you could not even cite by name and context - which led to a great deal of institutional introspection at the time (40 years ago). And another extremely vague reference to "repressed memories" (30 years ago). You claim this was "psychology" which "did" that - a claim utterly lacking in detail, context, specifics, and citations.

That is how skepticism actually works. Unattested, unsubstantiated, and ignorant claims need not be accepted.

So there's that.

(06-07-2014 08:28 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  To sum up, I think it's wise to be honest with the problems in the field of psychology. Because of the reasons I've already listed, we should also view the field with caution.

What does that mean? A vacuous pronouncement is all well and good, but rather lacking in substance.

Let me remind you of the many times I agreed it was far from perfect. Let me remind you that your response to this was to say "so you're saying it's perfect". That is not endearing.

(06-07-2014 08:28 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  In regards to peer-reviewed journals... I think you're right. If a counselor suggests that the personality test they gave me is to be trusted, I should probably ask them to prove it with evidence from peer-reviewed journals.

That is your right.

If a geologist tells you the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, do you ask them to prove it with evidence from peer-reviewed journals?

If a doctor tells you he is testing your blood cell count, do you ask him to prove the methodology with evidence from peer-reviewed journals?

Just curious.

(06-07-2014 08:28 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  My opponents are caught up in ad-hominems and no true scottsman fallacies. I suppose it is their right, but perhaps we all should take a more honest look at the field, instead of just trusting anything we hear from a supposed practitioner of psychology. That skepticism might have helped those caught up in the recovered memory craze.

Once again you rush to make spurious accusations of fallacy. Please stop that; it does not reflect well on you. If you are so determined to leave your beliefs unchanged, you might very well actually believe your own accusations.

You have completely failed to address any of my comments beyond hackneyed straw men.

(06-07-2014 08:28 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I personally wish everyone in the field was more like Oliver Sacks. I've read several of his books, and his book Hallucinations dealt honestly with the negative ways those who have experienced hallucinations have been treated. He's also quite honest with his own flaws and faults, and has several very personal stories in the book.

How do you know they're not?

You've spent this whole time arguing to your feels. That's not evidence.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-07-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(06-07-2014 08:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(06-07-2014 08:14 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  So, anytime anyone in the field of psychology does anything wrong, then you just claim that aren't really practicing psychology. Got it. You realize that is the definition of the No True Scottsman fallacy, right?

Are you trying to misunderstand me?

You're trying very hard to make that fallacy accusation fit, but it will not.

If you refuse to listen to explanation and persist in composition fallacy, that is your prerogative. I have asked you for a credible source on the repressed memory hysteria. I have provided recent citations explaining why it does not hold up. If you wish to claim it was more than a pop culture spasm then you must demonstrate it. This is not peer-reviewed science. I can only hope that you understand the difference.

If you likewise refuse to accept the difference between "therapist" and "psychologist" then that is another of your problems. That distinction exists. "Therapist" is not a protected term in the United States. There is no body of standards. There is no accreditation. I will ask for what seems the thousandth time: do you understand what a professional college is? Psychologists have one. Psychiatrists have one. Therapists and counselors do not.

By all means, we may review your, er, "evidence". This begins with two vague claims, "it is not perfect" (!!!) and "the DSM is flawed". We have covered these previously. The first is trivial and meaningless; the second is accepted unanimously - but any actual criticism would involve specifics.

You then mentioned two tangentially related things. Rosenhan's studies - which you could not even cite by name and context - which led to a great deal of institutional introspection at the time (40 years ago). And another extremely vague reference to "repressed memories" ([b]30[b/] years ago). You claim this was "psychology" which "did" that - a claim utterly lacking in detail, context, specifics, and citations.

That is how skepticism actually works. Unattested, unsubstantiated, and ignorant claims need not be accepted.

So there's that.

You are the new king of the No True Scottsman fallacy. Congrats. You have my admiration. Keep talking.. I'm sure you will convince yourself.

I suggest you attempt to educate yourself by reading a few books. Start with Oliver Sack's book, Hallucinations. You'll thank me. Assuming you can see beyond your pre-conceived notions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(06-07-2014 08:35 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  You are the new king of the No True Scottsman fallacy. Congrats. You have my admiration. Keep talking.. I'm sure you will convince yourself.

You lack even basic reading comprehension.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars.

"X did A."
"X did not do A. Y did A."
"NO U R FALLACY."

Please try harder.

(06-07-2014 08:35 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I suggest you attempt to educate yourself by reading a few books.

Funny; I could easily say the same to you. The difference is, I'd be warranted to say so.

(06-07-2014 08:35 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Start with Oliver Sack's book, Hallucinations. You'll thank me.

I have. Remember when I supplied the missing detail on the citation you, yourself took from his book? And demonstrated that I knew far more about it than you?

Remember that?

(06-07-2014 08:35 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Assuming you can see beyond your pre-conceived notions.

If you're not even going to pretend to listen to others you shouldn't have bothered starting this conversation.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
06-07-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(06-07-2014 08:35 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  You are the new king of the No True Scottsman fallacy. Congrats. You have my admiration. Keep talking.. I'm sure you will convince yourself.

I suggest you attempt to educate yourself by reading a few books. Start with Oliver Sack's book, Hallucinations. You'll thank me. Assuming you can see beyond your pre-conceived notions.

Are you being serious or just trolling? I just read through this entire thread, and you have a point to question the validity of psychology, but you do not seem to understand how.
Everyone in this thread agrees that psychology is not perfect, though the main difference is accusing the field as a whole (you) vs accusing the current methods (everyone else).

I have to say, you've missed cjlr's argument entirely. Might I suggest you reread through this thread and compare your accusations of fallacies to his actual comments?

The problem with psychology is not just "psychology is wrong", but it's all we know. Psychology will change in coming years with newfound knowledge just as every other field in science has. You seem to be discarding it before it's even reached maturity...

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Im_Ryan's post
06-07-2014, 10:46 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Currently the way research happens in the field of psychology is (largely, although not completely) correlative. They take data on a given data set and use statistics and models to make some conclusion. For example, X number of people of a sample size Y exhibit some symptoms, therefore ..." whatever. This is not the ideal way to do science, and it wouldn't hold up in many other fields. The reason psychologists and psychiatrists do research this way is because they are the best forms of research currently available. This is no way discredits or excludes the neurological research being done, in increasingly equal amounts, in the field as well.

The DSM represents the best and most applicable body of knowledge on mental and psychiatric disorders. Science is always evolving, psychology is a science, so literally as soon as they print a version of a DSM it is already out of date. Of course we learn more and more about disorders ever day, so previous DSM are poorly informed as compared to more recent DSM. The field of psychology can almost be called and infant science. Skepticism, on the part of the informed and educated individuals who can conduct experiments and provide relevant and coherent arguments, is warranted. The alternative, however, would be to return to 19th century methods of treating mental patients, which I think all of us would agree is not ideal. Unless you are pro lobotomy and classic electro shock therapy.

The effect of "talking" therapy is both difficult to quantify and arguably un-impactful. There is a lot of data out there that is none to validating for the therapy. Skepticism is warranted and useful by those that can propose better treatments. More and more psychology is learning towards teaching new behaviors rather than discussing ones feelings. This has been shown to be effective for peoples that can effectively learn new behaviors. Autism is often treated this way; kids are taught how to behave rather than taught how to feel or what to think. There is a significant body of evidence that shows it works, but it has flaws and there are other competing therapies that show promise as well. The scientific method at work.

Again, the alternative is that we don't try at all. There are limits as to what current medicine can do, as well as undesirably side effects that patients would prefer to avoid. "Talking therapy" is relatively cheap, both in cost of treatment and in cost of side effects.

This is a web forum. It is expected that uneducated people will take a stance on complicated and broad topics (including myself, I don't know shit). When you criticize an entire field of science though, you are more or less begging the questions "how should they do it better?". So here I go, how would you change the field of psychology? Evidence would be nice, a peer reviewed journal would be better. If you have any of that on hand feel free to present it. Otherwise it is tempting to write you off as entirely speaking from ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
14-07-2014, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2014 09:36 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Well, let me see if I can try again in a way that will make sense to you all. See, there are some of us people out there in the world who call ourselves skeptics. When people make positive claims like "Psychology is to be trusted" we start looking into the facts. When we find evidence of psychology doing harm we point out those problems.

I never said psychology should be stopped... I've even admitted that there are people who really need it. But, I think we need to continue to point out and be honest about the flaws in the hope that in doing so the science will become better and more objective in the future, if that's possible. I'm glad we live in a world where psychology can be talked about on shows like NPR's Science Friday, and where articles can be written in Discover magazine.

I'm also rather disappointed that a discussion like this can devolve so quickly into accusations and ad hominems. Several posters quickly claimed that anyone who would criticize psychology the way I did must have something wrong with them. Those knee-jerk reactions are ridiculously immature. Perhaps those of you who made those claims should take a look into your own mental makeup in order to figure out why you need to quickly jump to logical fallacies when someone has an opinion that is different than your own. You may also want to check the assumptions you have obviously made about me and my motives for bringing up the topic.

In case anyone is still listening. Another thing we skeptics like to do is listen to podcasts like Rationally Speaking. A friend recently pointed me to a book that was suggested in an episode. It's called "Plato, Not Prozac!: Applying Eternal Wisdom to Everyday Problems.".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 06:34 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
Must do better...

Drinking Beverage


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 06:11 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  But, I think we need to continue to point out and be honest about the flaws in the hope that in doing so the science will become better and more objective in the future, if that's possible.

This has been happening in science since the beginning of time. That's how science progresses, you know.

(14-07-2014 06:11 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I'm also rather disappointed that a discussion like this can devolve so quickly into accusations and ad hominems. Several posters quickly claimed that anyone who would criticize psychology the way I did must have something wrong with them. Those knee-jerk reactions are ridiculously immature. Perhaps those of you who made those claims should take a look into your own mental makeup in order to figure out why you need to quickly jump to logical fallacies when someone has an opinion that is different than your own. You may also want to check the assumptions you have obviously made about me and my motives for bringing up the topic.

I didn't see anyone say such things.

And you can't call a joke an "ad hominem".

You repeatedly ignored cjlr's arguments and just repeated the same things. I read through the whole thread and I felt like pulling my hair out. I honestly wondered how he could go on with you.

You ignore arguments, people point it out to you and instead of going back and addressing those arguments, you get defensive.
What did you expect?

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like undergroundp's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: