Skeptical of Psychology?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2014, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2014 07:03 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 06:50 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(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?

Evidence of ad hominems?
For starters... Post number 6.

Quote:You appear to know nothing about the actual field. Why don't you attend the next national College of Psychologists conference and tell them it's all bunk? I'm sure they'd be delighted to know better; then they could stop wasting an awful lot of time.

"It's not perfect therefore it's useless" is quite fallacious, as it happens.

As for subjectivity, you seemed not to understand what I attempted to tell you earlier; all diagnoses and all tests are inevitably subjective, in every realm of medicine.

And lastly, you cannot possibly blame the field for the societal stigmas against discussing or acknowledging mental health issues. That's insane. Would you rather remain ignorant of the diagnosis if your diagnosis were intestinal cancer? The tests are not objective - they are prone to failure and false positives; there are no positives (!) and it'll make people treat you differently (!!), so...

cjlr quickly assumed I was saying that "it's not perfect therefore it's useless". He's wrong. And that comment is exactly the type of immature knee-jerk reaction that disappoints me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 05:24 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  What is your take on the matter?

Psychology is a field I haven't seen very many people excel in but it has a lot of potential, I tend to think it is where humanity will find real solutions to the problems we face. Understanding the motives behind behaviour is vital in addressing them, and these are things I'd encourage everyone to look into and seek an understanding of in order to recognise their own issues. I think a lot of psychologists do not like to give too much away in their expertise because ultimately if you solve these problems then the psychologist will be out of a job.

The experiences you seem to have had is with Therapists not psychologists, generally psychologists don't work with people, they study people. A Therapist or Psychiatrist tends to listen to you and will subtly guide you to ask the right questions or reveal certain things, but it isn't really to them but for yourself to analyse. It is in our own thinking that we find real answers and it is in ourselves that we are most likely to listen. Most people ignore the hell out of me because that is the way an ego will work; it wants to be successful, not be dragged into success by another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ray Butler's post
14-07-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 06:56 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Evidence of ad hominems?
For starters... Post number 6.

Quote:You appear to know nothing about the actual field. Why don't you attend the next national College of Psychologists conference and tell them it's all bunk? I'm sure they'd be delighted to know better; then they could stop wasting an awful lot of time.

"It's not perfect therefore it's useless" is quite fallacious, as it happens.

As for subjectivity, you seemed not to understand what I attempted to tell you earlier; all diagnoses and all tests are inevitably subjective, in every realm of medicine.

And lastly, you cannot possibly blame the field for the societal stigmas against discussing or acknowledging mental health issues. That's insane. Would you rather remain ignorant of the diagnosis if your diagnosis were intestinal cancer? The tests are not objective - they are prone to failure and false positives; there are no positives (!) and it'll make people treat you differently (!!), so...

cjlr quickly assumed I was saying that "it's not perfect therefore it's useless". He's wrong. And that comment is exactly the type of immature knee-jerk reaction that disappoints me.

By saying things like "There are no benefits to being diagnosed" you are pretty much saying that the process is useless, so you can't blame him for assuming that.

And still, this doesn't change the fact that you are still avoiding to address his arguments.

By the way, about psychology being subjective, my brother once got like five different diagnoses and different prescriptions for a very simple problem he had in his throat. And of course, there are countless cases where this happens. Why doesn't that make you equally skeptical of medicine?

"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
14-07-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 06:56 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Evidence of ad hominems?
For starters... Post number 6.

...

cjlr quickly assumed I was saying that "it's not perfect therefore it's useless". He's wrong. And that comment is exactly the type of immature knee-jerk reaction that disappoints me.

I did not. As you well know, that was me being hyperbolic after you already (in another thread) ignored my responses and reiterated the exact same invalid points.

You've repeatedly mischaracterised others as saying "but it is perfect" (your post #28 is an incredible straw man) and as such have comprehensively ignored every response you've received. You have no substantive criticism and no real understanding of the issues.

Nor do you know what a scotsman fallacy is (see posts #41 and #43). I provided peer-reviewed citations from scientific journals. You dismissed them with feels. I provided an explanation of professional colleges and accreditation. You dismissed this with feels.

Nor do you know what an ad hominem is: "you are wrong because you are rude" is an ad hominem (one you've busted out in this very thread). "You are wrong because you are ignorant" is not an ad hominem. It is directly relevant to the content of your argument.

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
14-07-2014, 11:13 AM
Re: RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(04-07-2014 01:13 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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?

Being aware of flaws that are more openly accepted as legitimate isn't really "skeptical" of anything.

You really haven't shown a real reason for saying you're skeptical. It's either a bad label choice on your part or you aren't aware enough that psychology isn't idealized as flawless. It's not your while argument, but the aspects that say are there. The other arguments aren't actually thought clearly out as skeptical... It's agreeing with what's acknowledged.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 11:36 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 06:11 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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.".

You seem to be confusing the broad field of science called 'psychology' with the particular application known as 'therapy'. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
14-07-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 11:03 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 06:56 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Evidence of ad hominems?
For starters... Post number 6.

...

cjlr quickly assumed I was saying that "it's not perfect therefore it's useless". He's wrong. And that comment is exactly the type of immature knee-jerk reaction that disappoints me.

I did not. As you well know, that was me being hyperbolic after you already (in another thread) ignored my responses and reiterated the exact same invalid points.

You've repeatedly mischaracterised others as saying "but it is perfect" (your post #28 is an incredible straw man) and as such have comprehensively ignored every response you've received. You have no substantive criticism and no real understanding of the issues.

Nor do you know what a scotsman fallacy is (see posts #41 and #43). I provided peer-reviewed citations from scientific journals. You dismissed them with feels. I provided an explanation of professional colleges and accreditation. You dismissed this with feels.

Nor do you know what an ad hominem is: "you are wrong because you are rude" is an ad hominem (one you've busted out in this very thread). "You are wrong because you are ignorant" is not an ad hominem. It is directly relevant to the content of your argument.

So there's that.

Hmm. so you need more proof?

Well consider your post number 9.
Quote:I'm being rather short with you here. I'm sorry for that. But what little patience I ever had for "science is wrong because my feels" is long gone. This applies to psychology every bit as much as to climatology, cosmology, biology, geology, and on and on...
Another obvious mischaracterization of me and my motives. And an obvious ad hominem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 11:44 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Hmm. so you need more proof?

"More" would only apply had you ever given any in the first place.

(14-07-2014 11:44 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Well consider your post number 9.

Yes, let's. I admit to being a bit rude because I find your obstinacy tedious.

This is, once again, not an ad hominem. If you're reduced to whining about tone, I guess it's because you've decided not to address the several points I repeatedly raised.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
14-07-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 11:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 06:11 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  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.".

You seem to be confusing the broad field of science called 'psychology' with the particular application known as 'therapy'. Consider

is therapy part of the field of psychology? Yes, I believe it is. But, I think if you read the transcript of the Science Friday program, and the Discover article, you'll find they don't mention therapy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Skeptical of Psychology?
(14-07-2014 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 11:44 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Hmm. so you need more proof?

"More" would only apply had you ever given any in the first place.

(14-07-2014 11:44 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Well consider your post number 9.

Yes, let's. I admit to being a bit rude because I find your obstinacy tedious.

This is, once again, not an ad hominem. If you're reduced to whining about tone, I guess it's because you've decided not to address the several points I repeatedly raised.

Whining tone? You just don't know when to quit, do you?
Here's another ad hominem..your post number 12
Quote:Srsly bro.

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

Good luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: