Psychology- how the hell can it be a science??

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Is Psychology a sience?

yes
9
69%
No
4
31%
 
Total votes : 13

Psychology- how the hell can it be a science??

Postby Nikol_numb » Sun May 09, 2004 12:43 pm

Why does one need science to understand the human mind. i believe understanding the mind comes from a gift of compatibility one has with the human race. For as long as psychology, therapy, psychiatry, are treated like science, there will be no advances in those fields. why do u think nobody ever wants to see a shrink?? cos they're scientists and don't know jack about the human mind,pain,feeling....... the human mind is not an experiment. I reckon if someone is willing to accept that there are no logical explanations to everything in life, they can specialise in these fields. thats the problem with science. it a study of finding logic behind everything. Not everything in this world is logic.
Always contemplating, always deep in thought,
mind escaping, never been caught,
Terrifyingly stronger than this vibrant soul,
out to destroy me, out to seek control.
This brain, this mind, this part of me.
has ironically become my worst enemy.
Nikol_numb
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:11 am
Location: Kenya

Postby Rafajafar » Sun May 09, 2004 9:44 pm

Oh what do you base your claim that not everything in life is logic?

And if psychology isnt a science because of this premise, then why is ...ohhh...biology? Or physics. Surely if there were things in this world that were illogical then these sciences would be invalidated as well.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby Guest » Wed May 12, 2004 3:35 pm

Rafajafar wrote:Oh what do you base your claim that not everything in life is logic?

And if psychology isnt a science because of this premise, then why is ...ohhh...biology? Or physics. Surely if there were things in this world that were illogical then these sciences would be invalidated as well.


because an interstine can't tell u how it digests food. A circuit can't tell u how currents flow through it and chemicals can't tell u why some aren't compatible. People can tell u why they feel the way they do. Its all about being able to coax stuff out of people. it requires social skills of some sort. All the neuron activity inside the brain doesn't really do jack to help a psychiatrist help someone.
Guest
 

Postby Rafajafar » Wed May 12, 2004 8:28 pm

That's not true at all.

All those neurons in the brain are what make those emotions.

Ever hear of serotonin reuptake cells? They gather excess serotonin in the brain so that you don't walk around high all day. Some people have too many serotonin reuptake cells. These people have depression. Drugs such as Lexipro, Effexor, and Prozac help to cure depression by flooding the brain with a chemical that plugs some of the serotonin reuptake cells and allowing more of the real serotonin to cause cemical reactions in the brain.

Ever hear of el dopa? It's a neurotransmitter that controls how you recieve and organizes information. If you have too much of this in your brain, you're going to get terrets and paranoid schizophrenia. If you have too little, you're going to go into a coma. Having fluctuations causes bipolar disorder. Drugs like Welbutrin help fix this imbalance.

Knowing the brain and how it works can cure you from clinical mental illness. Now... complexes that were developed due to trauma and stress... that's a different story... but it's not at all "random" or "illogical".
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby Nikol_numb » Thu May 13, 2004 6:59 pm

Ok fine. u win about the drugs. But talking to a shrink isn't easy when he has a scientific perspective rather than a humane one. And i still think that not everything in life has to make sence.
Nikol_numb
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:11 am
Location: Kenya

Postby Rafajafar » Fri May 14, 2004 4:16 am

Nikol_numb wrote:Ok fine. u win about the drugs. But talking to a shrink isn't easy when he has a scientific perspective rather than a humane one. And i still think that not everything in life has to make sence.


Well, so long as you realize that not everything making sense is a measure of your own shortcomings and not of reality's. Everything in reality MUST make sense. Just because it doesn't make sense TO YOU doesn't mean it's irrational.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby Guest » Fri May 14, 2004 6:02 pm

oh for f****'s sake!!! stop acting so self-righteous. So you're saying everything in life makes sence to you? heck, even the greatest of scientists, can't make sense of everything! and what the hell do u know about my shortcomings??
Guest
 

Postby kyry » Fri May 14, 2004 7:11 pm

Nikol, you sound pretty misguided on this topic, and science generally. Things aren't science just because someone says they are. And what do you know about what advances are happening in psychology?
kyry
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:21 pm
Location: London/Oxford

Postby Rafajafar » Fri May 14, 2004 7:11 pm

Anonymous wrote:oh for f****'s sake!!! stop acting so self-righteous. So you're saying everything in life makes sence to you? heck, even the greatest of scientists, can't make sense of everything! and what the hell do u know about my shortcomings??


I never said it made sense to me. I said that just because you do not understand it doesn't mean it's irrational. It may be that you're not ready to understand the rationality of it.

For an example of such a case, re-read this thread.

Jerk.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby Sammy UK » Mon May 17, 2004 3:05 pm

Come on now people, let's not let ignorance start another unnecessary conflict!
I believe that everything in the universe (and beyond if that's the case) will eventually be described by some mathematical term. Logic - It's just that, as a race, we have not yet found it. As far as Psycho-therapy goes, there's a difference between psychiatry and psychology. Psychiatrists diagnose and prescribe, whereas psychologists interact with the feelings more, and this is not a science as yet. There are certain patterns in psychology, but I think that they are more complex that we (human scientists) can deal with at the moment.
Sammy UK
 

Postby DarkMagus » Mon May 17, 2004 4:15 pm

its fairly clear to me, and to anyone else who studies this (psychology) seriously, that psychology is considered a science because it makes use of standard scientific methods. certain things in psychology (behaviors, responses to stimuli, neurotransmitter levels/interactions, etc etc this goes on forever) can be quantified and so they are subjected to all of the same parameters that something like chemistry or physics can be subjected to.

when you have data, you can make predictions, projections, conclusions, graphs, diagrams, etc etc... again, this goes on and on forever.

the more "humanistic" approaches to psychology have been (and are currently) being "weeded out" in favor of a more scientific approach, because the scientific approach just produces more useful and practical results. this is (in my opinion), a consequence of our western culture. however, i do think that there will always be a place (and a need) for a more humanistic approach (in counseling... and in general, in creating a holistic treatment plan for a patient). like, if you're counseling a patient, you don't just slap them in the face with piles upon piles of scientific facts and data. there's room for both worlds, but currently the dominant methodology is the scientific one. 8)
User avatar
DarkMagus
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:21 am
Location: manchester, nh usa

Postby The Underground Man » Mon May 17, 2004 4:54 pm

Read about some approachs such as logo therapy. I'd really recommend you read mans search for meaning by Viktor E. Frankl to help you come to understand how science and humanism are mixed together to study human behavior and the mind.
Hence, viper thoughts, that coil around my mind,
Reality's dark dream!
I turn from you, and listen to the wind. Coleridge

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant; we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." Einstein
User avatar
The Underground Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 9:44 am
Location: New York City

Re: Psychology- how the hell can it be a science??

Postby Guest » Thu May 20, 2004 7:19 pm

Nikol_numb wrote:Why does one need science to understand the human mind. i believe understanding the mind comes from a gift of compatibility one has with the human race. For as long as psychology, therapy, psychiatry, are treated like science, there will be no advances in those fields. why do u think nobody ever wants to see a shrink?? cos they're scientists and don't know jack about the human mind,pain,feeling....... the human mind is not an experiment. I reckon if someone is willing to accept that there are no logical explanations to everything in life, they can specialise in these fields. thats the problem with science. it a study of finding logic behind everything. Not everything in this world is logic.


Science is defined (taken from dictionary.com) as

1) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena... Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena and applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2) Methodological activity, discipline, or study.

Now if psychology, therapy, and psychiatry are not treated like in a scientific manner, which other method would you have suggested instead?

Also I think your original post in the thread poses many separate questions, namely a) Is psychology a science? b) Why does one need science to understand the human mind? c) Is finding a logic behind everything a problem with science? d) Is everything in this world based on logic?

a) I think DarkMagus' post has mainly answered this question. The one I wonder about is political science, that one I'm not sure about.

b) What alternative method would you suggest to understand the human mind?

c) By its very nature, science tries to find a logical solution to a given problem.

d) Depends what you mean by logic, but I think the question is vague at best. Perhaps u mean to question whether everything in this world can be understood (by us)?
Guest
 

Postby Sepiraph » Thu May 20, 2004 7:21 pm

Forgot to log in, I didn't mean to post anonymous.
Sepiraph
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Rafajafar » Thu May 20, 2004 7:33 pm

Just a side note that's slightly off topic.

I agree with the Poli Sci comment. However, Poli Sci seems infantile to me in respect to the "science" part. Politics and sophistry are skills that have been taught for ages, however, as a science, the craft is rather new. We can already see the stunning results of such research, though, and it's very very very dangerous. For instance, think of the propaganda tools, scare tactics, societal manipulation that has occured after 9/11. We've come a long way from Vietnam in terms of learning to sway the public opinions in one direction.... on BOTH sides. We see media being used in new ways to almost program people into the citizens we want them to be.

This IS a science... but a young one. Sheesh, a few years ago I never considered Economics to be a science. After this past year, though, I see that it is indeed a science. Not only that, but since the recent advent of experimental economics, it is now an experimental science. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/~aroth/econsci.html

I do not see us being far away trom having experimental Political Science. It's a combination of experimental economics and experimental sociology... both of which we have.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Fail to Qualify

Postby truatman » Thu May 20, 2004 8:20 pm

How might psychology fail to qualify as a science?

A science pays attention to observable events. Apart from behavior what other events can we observe in the field of psychology? How much of psychology involves unobservable events?

For instance, emotions that produce zero behavioral changes cannot get observed.

A science depends on accurate, reliable and valid measurement. What in psychology can we accurately, reliably and validly measure?

Concepts in psychology often lack a consensus definition. Terms in one sub-branch of psychology can have strongly different definitions from the same terms in another sub-branch.
truatman
 

Postby kyry » Thu May 20, 2004 11:56 pm

How much of psychology involves unobservable events?


Not much. Psychology is all about observed data and the analysis thereof. One can take an antirealist approach with respect to some of the phenomena in psychology, but then one can do that for electrons, fields, atoms, forces etc etc - things which aren't "observable" in the colloquial sense. This does not, in my opinion, get anyone very far.

...emotions that produce zero behavioral changes cannot get observed...


Unless you count the various kinds of brain activity that can be imaged, skin conductance responses, reaction times in implicit attitude tasks, lesion-induced emotional changes, chemical interference etc etc etc etc.

A science depends on accurate, reliable and valid measurement. What in psychology can we accurately, reliably and validly measure?


Brain activity by imaging, neural oscillations, neural modulation, ERPs, reaction times, gross error, task accuracy, individual differences etc etc.

Concepts in psychology often lack a consensus definition. Terms in one sub-branch of psychology can have strongly different definitions from the same terms in another sub-branch.


No they don't - the terms used are very specific. The only time one finds disagreement on such things is when a new term is being established, but that is very much a feature of science generally.
kyry
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:21 pm
Location: London/Oxford

Postby Prolificisticationist » Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:23 am

kyry wrote:Psychology is all about observed data and the analysis thereof.


It would be more accurate to say interpretational analysis of behavioral patterns observed. Formal diangoses too often must fall under a clinician's subjective interpretation.

Skin conductance responses, reaction times in implicit attitude tasks, lesion-induced emotional changes, chemical interference [...] Imaging, neural oscillations, neural modulation, ERPs, reaction times, gross error, task accuracy, individual differences etc etc.


Yes but these are all indirect measurements of concepts that are unquantifiable and simply cannot be measured: human consciousness, mental health, sense of wellbeing. Anyway, we're getting tripped up over semantic silliness, here. Psychology and psychiatry are sciences, sure, but the main operator in distinction for our discussion should be inexact. Psychology is full of subjective diagnoses and new clinical disorders that get invented every year.

Raf, while Nikol_numb does sound a bit ill-informed in his assertions, you come off sounding "self-righteous" in this discussion because of the knowledge you claim to have and the manner in which you present it.

Rafajafar wrote:All those neurons in the brain are what make those emotions.


Easily arguable and unproven.

Ever hear of serotonin reuptake cells? They gather excess serotonin in the brain so that you don't walk around high all day. Some people have too many serotonin reuptake cells. These people have depression.


Gross oversimplifications. Flawed implied syllogistic premises. Laymanspeak. :)

Drugs such as Lexipro, Effexor, and Prozac help to cure depression by flooding the brain with a chemical that plugs some of the serotonin reuptake cells and allowing more of the real serotonin to cause chemical reactions in the brain.


There has been vast research to suggest that the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine have a direct effect on mood. The SSRI class of antidepressants focuses on one such neurotransmitter (it's "selective"), while others such as bupropion/Wellbutrin actually affect more than one neurotransmitter. So it is true that major affective disorder is a psychiatric condition often treatable with these new medications. However, the exact mechanisms by which they work is still largely speculative, educated guesswork.

Ever hear of el dopa? It's a neurotransmitter that controls how you recieve and organize information. If you have too much of this in your brain, you're going to get terrets and paranoid schizophrenia. If you have too little, you're going to go into a coma. Having fluctuations causes bipolar disorder. Drugs like Welbutrin help fix this imbalance.


Whew. Christ, this one's so full of broad generalization that I wouldn't know where to start even if I had the time! (I don't have the time.)

Knowing the brain and how it works can cure you from clinical mental illness.


Psychiatric disorders generally cannot be cured.

Now... complexes that were developed due to trauma and stress... that's a different story.


Why should it be? According to your thinking, everything is fixable with better living through chemicals!

[Brain chemistry and its relation to mental disorders is] not at all "random" or "illogical".


Indeed, you are correct sir. :) Let's try for "vague," "nebulous," "ethereal"... "hypothetical"... Hell I'll even throw in "creative." You must recognize the creative genius and marketing enthusiasm of a multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry whose existence still finds us a curiously neurotic, psychohypochondriacal, and fussy people.
"Friedrick Nietzche! We cannot burn Friedrick Nietzche. He was the most important thinker of the 19th century."

"Oh please. Nietzche was a chauvenist pig who was in love with sister."

"....He was not a chauvenist pig."

"But he was in love with his sister."

–From the motion picture, Day After Tomorrow
User avatar
Prolificisticationist
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Postby willem » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:01 am

pure hard science is just a part of psychology
you can't help people with psychological problems based on only the analysis of the human brain..
we simply don't know enough about how it works, therefore, social skills and interaction are at least as important as scientific research

both help understanding and curing, but on another level...
both are important
i don't think neural science is advanced enough to fully cover psychology, not by far,

you can help people much better mostly, by talking to em, trained social helpers may not know anything about neural activity, and yet help people much better than whatever drug....

willem
User avatar
willem
Thinker
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby Rafajafar » Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:18 pm

Prolificisticationist wrote:Raf, while Nikol_numb does sound a bit ill-informed in his assertions, you come off sounding "self-righteous" in this discussion because of the knowledge you claim to have and the manner in which you present it.


Well, you choose to read things how you choose to read them. I was just saying, this person, who is obviously uneducated, has no place to make such assertions as he was making.

Prolificisticationist wrote:
Rafajafar wrote:All those neurons in the brain are what make those emotions.


Easily arguable and unproven.


Fine, then you wouldn't mind if I take a sledgehammer to your head and test the idea that neurons aren't required for emotions?

Prolificisticationist wrote:
Ever hear of serotonin reuptake cells? They gather excess serotonin in the brain so that you don't walk around high all day. Some people have too many serotonin reuptake cells. These people have depression.


Gross oversimplifications. Flawed implied syllogistic premises. Laymanspeak. :)


... I was speaking to a layman.

Prolificisticationist wrote:
Drugs such as Lexipro, Effexor, and Prozac help to cure depression by flooding the brain with a chemical that plugs some of the serotonin reuptake cells and allowing more of the real serotonin to cause chemical reactions in the brain.


There has been vast research to suggest that the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine have a direct effect on mood. The SSRI class of antidepressants focuses on one such neurotransmitter (it's "selective"), while others such as bupropion/Wellbutrin actually affect more than one neurotransmitter. So it is true that major affective disorder is a psychiatric condition often treatable with these new medications. However, the exact mechanisms by which they work is still largely speculative, educated guesswork.


And, at this point, Superstring Theory is merely guess work. Would you call Superstring Theorists crackpots because they haven't proven anything yet?

The first step in "science" is forming hypothesis. The last step is reforming your hypothesis. When a direct correlation between taking these drugs and a cure is found, the next step is to make certain of why the work. No science is complete. Why hold Psychology to a higher standard than one would hold any other science?

Does that sound self-righteous to you?

Prolificisticationist wrote:
Ever hear of el dopa? It's a neurotransmitter that controls how you recieve and organize information. If you have too much of this in your brain, you're going to get terrets and paranoid schizophrenia. If you have too little, you're going to go into a coma. Having fluctuations causes bipolar disorder. Drugs like Welbutrin help fix this imbalance.


Whew. Christ, this one's so full of broad generalization that I wouldn't know where to start even if I had the time! (I don't have the time.)


Poor baby. Well, I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough for you, but the idea wasn't to go over the details. The idea was to illustrate that there are physical connections to emotions, thought patterns, and perceptions in the brain. That mission has been accomplished.

What is your mission, John? To expose me as a fraud? To cause trouble?

Prolificisticationist wrote:
Knowing the brain and how it works can cure you from clinical mental illness.


Psychiatric disorders generally cannot be cured.


First off, I beg to differ. Most psychiatric disorders aren't even biological, such as PTSD, most personality disorders, and even weird little programming bugs like phantom limbs. These can be cured, and have been time and time again. Drugs function as tools to aid in helping the patient resume normal thinking patterns.

Now comes the grey area that I think I meant "cure" to cover but didn't in only YOUR mind. This is of remission. Most psychiatric disorders are known to go into remission. Bipolars, Schizophrenics, Depressives, they all have been known to pop in and out of bad thought patterns. Drugs are a way to keep these negative thought patterns in remission. Do you deny this?

I'm not certain what was going through your mind as you wrote that. I certainly hope it wasn't, "Maybe if I act more anal, people will like me." If so, then it's clear that a majority of your knowledge on this subject is derived from first hand experiences.

Prolificisticationist wrote:
Now... complexes that were developed due to trauma and stress... that's a different story.


Why should it be? According to your thinking, everything is fixable with better living through chemicals!


Well, I never made that assertion. I'd appreciate it if you read what I say before you tell me what I said.

Sometimes, chemical treatments DO help with these disorders, correct. However, these are, in laymens terms :roll: :lol: more of a "software" problem than a "hardware" problem. Even if the biochemistry of the brain is balanced, sometime we talk ourselves into bad thought patterns. You have to "reprogram" you thought patterns to be normal, and that is much harder to do than pop a pill. This is why, in addition to these drugs, most people are told to see a therapist so they can work on the other issues that have to do with how your brain programmed itself. This, too, is a science. Brains operate on very similar programming, on the whole, and the disorders themselves can be talked through and fixed using proven techniques.

Prolificisticationist wrote:
[Brain chemistry and its relation to mental disorders is] not at all "random" or "illogical".


Indeed, you are correct sir. :) Let's try for "vague," "nebulous," "ethereal"... "hypothetical"... Hell I'll even throw in "creative." You must recognize the creative genius and marketing enthusiasm of a multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry whose existence still finds us a curiously neurotic, psychohypochondriacal, and fussy people.


I hate the pharmaceutical industry... I also hate the insurance industry. Both of these industries are using tactics which I feel to be unethical or at least unconscionable. Psychiatrists are being given benefits for using one drug over another. For instance, my mother's office, a particular psychiatrist has lunch delivered for their office from a different upper-crust resturaunt every week... who pays for this? The drug companies. This same person goes to Florida, California, Atlantic City, yadda yadda every few months for about a week. Who flys her to these places, pays for the hotel, the rental car, and gives her a few thousand dollars in spending money? Drug companies that want her to attend their workshops (read: sales pitch). She doesn't even show up to the workshops most of the time because they really don't give her any incentive to. She does, however, feel more inclined to prescribe medications to that company, though.

The pharmaceutical companies are crooks. However, they are crooks who sell a product which does a lot of good for a lot of people. Just because the pharmeceutical companies are conducting themselves wrongly does not mean that the drugs they sell are bad. If that's what you're trying to say, then I'd say your argument was fallacious.

"vague", "nebulous", or "etherial"... it works. I do not know why you want to claim that it doesn't work. I don't think you have empirical evidence on your side for that one, though. The alternative to taking these drugs is much worse.

Why the hostility? It's coming off as rather suspect, you know.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby Prolificisticationist » Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:18 am

Hi Rafa,

First of all, pleased to make your acquaintance. I'm the n00b here, come sauntering in disrespecting the veteran (you). So on garnering respect or likeability, the onus is on me, and I perhaps came off as unnecessarily coarse.

But my intention was to back Nikol_numb's general contention in saying that sure, the field of psychology might meet the textbook criterion of a bona fide "science," but it's sure not an exact science. Then I saw a lot of pseudoscientific declarations, broad generalizations, and oversimplifications in your and kyry's posts which collectively (even if unintentionally) served to sort of team up on the guy, and well... I couldn't resist temptation!

This person, who is obviously uneducated, has no place to make such assertions as he was making.


I am not so sure that Nikol_numb is uneducated, and he has every bit as much right to make his stance as you or I do. In fact, the guy has some salient points: "Why does one need science to understand the human mind," he wonders; and "I believe understanding the mind comes from a gift of compatibility with the human race," by which he was trying say an empathic disposition towards others - but I knew what he meant. Those are sound points to propound, Rafa.

Overall I thought he raised a good question worthy of discussion, certainly worthy of more than the cutesy ad hominemesque jabs that placed the poor chap in a defensive posture.
"Friedrick Nietzche! We cannot burn Friedrick Nietzche. He was the most important thinker of the 19th century."

"Oh please. Nietzche was a chauvenist pig who was in love with sister."

"....He was not a chauvenist pig."

"But he was in love with his sister."

–From the motion picture, Day After Tomorrow
User avatar
Prolificisticationist
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Postby Rafajafar » Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:22 pm

Well, I don't root for the underdog or the leader of the pack. I try and go with what I feel is right and correct.

He based his arguments on one shakey premise that I felt to be... well... stupid (for lack of a better term).

Nikol_Numb wrote:thats the problem with science. it a study of finding logic behind everything. Not everything in this world is logic.


I couldn't disagree with this more. And that's what I based all following arguments and assertions off of...

He said I came off as "self righteous", but I dont think this is the word he meant. Smug, yes, perhaps. Flippest, maybe. That's me, though. *grins* I'm like that ALL the time. As for ganging up on him, I don't recall requiring help to squash this idea. If someone jumped in, it was because they were acting alone.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby DarkMagus » Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:10 pm

Prolificisticationist wrote:pseudoscientific declarations, broad generalizations, and oversimplifications


prolificisticationist,

hey buddy. yeah there's a lot of that 'round these parts. people read a couple articles off the internet, enhance their vocabulary a bit, and suddenly they're great intellectuals--masters of scientific and philosophical discourse. but they have absolutely NO understanding of the basics, and in turn, of the "big picture". You can clearly see that in terms their approach to the methodology, to logic, etc.

the word "pedant" was once used on here, by the highly respectable ILP user Logo, to describe this phenomenon. it's become my own way of just ending pointless discussions with folks who aren't speaking the "universal language" of logic, science, philosophy or whatever. tag em as a pedant in your mind, then move on. you'll never win anyway.

there IS a universal language that intellectuals can use amongst each other EVEN WHEN THEY COMPLETELY DISAGREE AND HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLD-VIEWS. some people just don't get that... why, i'll probably never know.

anyway, hope that helps somehow.

pedant - one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
User avatar
DarkMagus
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:21 am
Location: manchester, nh usa

Postby Rafajafar » Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:59 am

DarkMagus wrote:
Prolificisticationist wrote:pseudoscientific declarations, broad generalizations, and oversimplifications


prolificisticationist,

hey buddy. yeah there's a lot of that 'round these parts. people read a couple articles off the internet, enhance their vocabulary a bit, and suddenly they're great intellectuals--masters of scientific and philosophical discourse. but they have absolutely NO understanding of the basics, and in turn, of the "big picture". You can clearly see that in terms their approach to the methodology, to logic, etc.

the word "pedant" was once used on here, by the highly respectable ILP user Logo, to describe this phenomenon. it's become my own way of just ending pointless discussions with folks who aren't speaking the "universal language" of logic, science, philosophy or whatever. tag em as a pedant in your mind, then move on. you'll never win anyway.

there IS a universal language that intellectuals can use amongst each other EVEN WHEN THEY COMPLETELY DISAGREE AND HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLD-VIEWS. some people just don't get that... why, i'll probably never know.

anyway, hope that helps somehow.

pedant - one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.


And, I guess, by saying ALLLL of that, you're not, yourself, being pedantic?

Judge not less ye be judged, asshole.

These forums are not condusive for the type of hardcore intellectual debates you are speaking of. When you look at the topics being posted (repeatedly...god...repeatedly the same... damn... subject/question/yadda yadda) and the type of arguments that come up (such as the one with Nikol), you see that this forum is not a forum of "peers", as I'm sure you wish it was. This forum calls for people from all spectrums of life and experience, from the very young and educated, to the very old and uneducated. Your statements are highly suspect as I'm almost certain I can find instances where you, yourself, act in a manner which you are speaking out against in this post.

People are just trying to be. If you don't like it, either leave them be, retain the high ground and bitch about it, or leave. My preference is the latter.

Thank you.
"Hell is other people." -JPS

People whose posts I block:

  • Flannel Jesus

If these people are participating in a conversation, I cannot read what they say. This may cause disruption in flow, but unfortunately their poor behavior requires it.
User avatar
Rafajafar
Objectively Subjective
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:15 am
Location: D.C.

Postby Prolificisticationist » Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:24 pm

Yikes! Lots to catch up on. :evilfun:

Rafajafar wrote:
Nickel Bomb wrote:That's the problem with science. It's a study of finding logic behind everything. Not everything in this world is logic.


I couldn't disagree with this more. And that's what I based all following arguments and assertions off of...


Well, but he's right. Not all things can be explained away or alleviated with logic, with science, or with hard measurements. I would say that the human psyche is a prime example of this.

Rafajafar wrote:He said I came off as "self righteous", but I dont think this is the word he meant. Smug, yes, perhaps. Flippest, maybe. That's me, though. *grins*


You're correct. "Self-righteous" doesn't quite fit.

"Smug" or "flippant" -yeah those are maybe ok. I was thinking more of ...oh, arrogant. (Like me. :P)

=-=-=-=-=-=


The first step in "science" is forming hypothesis. The last step is reforming your hypothesis. When a direct correlation between taking these drugs and a cure is found, the next step is to make certain of why the work. No science is complete. Why hold Psychology to a higher standard than one would hold any other science?

Does that sound self-righteous to you?


Nahh. But I do have pretty pointed feelings about the field of psychology and the way that America is riddled with phobias, quirks, ticks, and a new disorder for the DSM every year. The way I see it, the question isn't why hold psychology to a higher standard, the question is can psychology possibly be held to the same standards as other sciences.

Drugs function as tools to aid in helping the patient resume normal thinking patterns. Most psychiatric disorders are known to go into remission. Bipolars, Schizophrenics, Depressives, they all have been known to pop in and out of bad thought patterns. Drugs are a way to keep these negative thought patterns in remission. Do you deny this?


No - and I don't deny that medications in psychiatry are a valid treatment option. They do immeasurable good, but they do not cure anything yet.

Stop taking them and symptoms can recur. In affective disorder (depression), medications can greatly alleviate suffering, and oftentimes the depression will abate and meds can be D/C'd. This does not, however, mean that the meds themselves affected "cure." You're throwing about this term far too liberally, IMO.

=-=-=-=-=-=

So your Mom's a shrink, eh? Has her own office and stuff? (Or is she part of the merry team?) Is she a psychologist or psychiatrist?


What is your mission, John? To expose me as a fraud? To cause
trouble?


:P Nahh. We should be able to have a conversation though without you attacking people, right? Calling them jerks and assholes and such.

Right, Rafa? ;)
"Friedrick Nietzche! We cannot burn Friedrick Nietzche. He was the most important thinker of the 19th century."

"Oh please. Nietzche was a chauvenist pig who was in love with sister."

"....He was not a chauvenist pig."

"But he was in love with his sister."

–From the motion picture, Day After Tomorrow
User avatar
Prolificisticationist
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Next

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users