What Are You Doing Right Now? (327 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
The material studied doesn't make something pseudoscience. Your argument is that "some psychological diagnosis seem made up to my untrained eye therefore the entire field is bullshit".
I think if you say something isn't scientific then you have to prove it with scientific process, rules, etc. Talk about studies, methods, etc. You guys are just saying what you think.
I think if you say something isn't scientific then you have to prove it with scientific process, rules, etc. Talk about studies, methods, etc. You guys are just saying what you think.
How about psychology doesn't meet any of the requirements for a discipline to be considered a science, also i didn't say some i said all diagnoses is speculative and subjective. Maybe you are the one who should look more into the subject
- - - Updated - - -
I agree. People will go to the doctor for the sniffles. I see a psychologist 1 or 2 times a month. Its definitely helped make my life better over the last 9 months or so.
The problem I have with the field is really that is is almost impossible to test many of the disorders as the tests themselves are highly subjective.
There's also an insane degree of arrogance involved with it all. If you look at the criteria for bpd, that is pretty much a complete judgment of someone's character. And really, that's almost all it is. I find it very funny that the people who claim you shouldn't stigmatize people with mental health issues have no reservations at all about labeling others with such a profound and all encompassing disorder. Honestly, that's what I find most distasteful about it all.
Not to mention the atrocities that the 'science' of psychology has faced in the past. We're still facing the fall out of repressed (fake) memories today, e.g. Netflix's show The Keepers, which oddly enough was praised by a lot of papers, but is complete and utter bullshit dismissed by courts a long time ago.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk
There's also an insane degree of arrogance involved with it all. If you look at the criteria for bpd, that is pretty much a complete judgment of someone's character. And really, that's almost all it is. I find it very funny that the people who claim you shouldn't stigmatize people with mental health issues have no reservations at all about labeling others with such a profound and all encompassing disorder. Honestly, that's what I find most distasteful about it all.
Not to mention the atrocities that the 'science' of psychology has faced in the past. We're still facing the fall out of repressed (fake) memories today, e.g. Netflix's show The Keepers, which oddly enough was praised by a lot of papers, but is complete and utter bullshit dismissed by courts a long time ago.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk
It's a field based on human behavior and symptoms that are described by patients that may have alterior motives other than treatment. You harp of bpd but it's one of many diagnosis. I get it, it seems to be a scapegoat in the used frequently in the court system. But many things used as evidence in a court system are bullshit including evidence brought about by medical and physical science experts.
The reason I brought up ADD earlier is because in the US it is a medical issue. If you had a child with hyperactivity you would take him to the doctor, tell the doctor what you'd seem and the doctor would prescribe any number of drugs. That annoys me so much, but does it make medicine a pseudoscience? Obviously not.
The reason I brought up ADD earlier is because in the US it is a medical issue. If you had a child with hyperactivity you would take him to the doctor, tell the doctor what you'd seem and the doctor would prescribe any number of drugs. That annoys me so much, but does it make medicine a pseudoscience? Obviously not.
You're right about the physics experts. Man, those guys will say anything depending on who pays them. Utter shit. I'm glad that most judges these days see it that way too.
The thing with psychology is mostly that I don't see a scientific process in making the diagnosis. I understand that DSM uses criteria for disorders. But whether or not a person meets those criteria is largely subjective. Sometimes the criteria are so broad that any given person is bound to meet them anyway. Not to mention the fact that mosts tests require a judgment from the tester.
And then there's the absolute quackery that psychologists and psychiatrists continue to use. I have seen countless psychiatric reports in court cases use Rorschach tests for example.
- - - Updated - - -
The entire reason it exists can boil down to the simple question: cui bono?
- - - Updated - - -
Honestly I realise the article been widely criticised and you know, maybe it is a bit harsh, but this is how I feel about psychology really:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713
If anything the US is the country with most attention for psychology worldwide.
- - - Updated - - -
Seven 
You sound exactly like a Hollywood housefrau who has concluded that vaccination cause autism
You sound exactly like a Hollywood housefrau who has concluded that vaccination cause autism
No, actually that would be you. Because I'm asking for scientific proof that says vaccination causes autism. The skeptic here is me, not you. But I find it very remarkable that everyone arguing in favour of psychology does not get any further than that.
No one is showing any proof as to how psychology does use empirical data.
No. It's mostly shouting that we know nothing. Even worse, you're trying to shift the very burden of proof that is always on the scientist.
You haven't come up with a single argument as to why psychology should be considered a science. And like I've said before, this is not something Deneb and me are inventing. This is an ongoing debate. You have literally provided 0 arguments so far. This is something you do often btw, not just in this debate.
All you have to offer is sarcasm and insults, but there is no intellectual substance behind your opinion.
Oh and the countless times you've said you're helping out 14 year old gang rape victims. That's fine, dude. I'm all for helping those girls. But that really isn't proof of anything. I guess if I were you I'd respond to that by shouting ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.
All you have to offer is sarcasm and insults, but there is no intellectual substance behind your opinion.
Oh and the countless times you've said you're helping out 14 year old gang rape victims. That's fine, dude. I'm all for helping those girls. But that really isn't proof of anything. I guess if I were you I'd respond to that by shouting ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.