Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it really just a pseudoscience? Personally I believe that some aspects of it are very "unscientific" However, I wouldn't completely discredit everything about the field.

*cracks knuckles*

Okay, where to start.

Psychology is indeed an actual science. Not a natural science (like biology or physics), persay, but still a science. What it is the study of the mind and human behaviors -- the word itself means "study of the mind".

Unscientific in what ways? You must realize that science is not something that is hard and fast and is something that is always changing based on what people find out, right? Psychology is studying people's minds and behaviors. Something that can be very erratic. It can come up with generalizations as to why people act/think a certain way, but as every person is different there will always be things that fall outside of what is the general consensus.

If you've studied anything about psychology you'll see how theories developed long ago are often changed or discarded entirely when new research comes into light, and that new theories are created all the time -- same as with natural sciences (or what is traditionally thought to be a science).

As for what Tom Cruise thinks about psychology.....the man doesn't know shit. Anyone who's taken as much as a high school psych course should know this.

And before you ask what my opinion matters or what knowledge I have of the subject, I am a psych major, and am studying to be a psychologist.

Nicely done..

Originally posted by Lana
*cracks knuckles*

Okay, where to start.

Psychology is indeed an actual science. Not a natural science (like biology or physics), persay, but still a science. What it is the study of the mind and human behaviors -- the word itself means "study of the mind".

Unscientific in what ways? You must realize that science is not something that is hard and fast and is something that is always changing based on what people find out, right? Psychology is studying people's minds and behaviors. Something that can be very erratic. It can come up with generalizations as to why people act/think a certain way, but as every person is different there will always be things that fall outside of what is the general consensus.

If you've studied anything about psychology you'll see how theories developed long ago are often changed or discarded entirely when new research comes into light, and that new theories are created all the time -- same as with natural sciences (or what is traditionally thought to be a science).

As for what Tom Cruise thinks about psychology.....the man doesn't know shit. Anyone who's taken as much as a high school psych course should know this.

And before you ask what my opinion matters or what knowledge I have of the subject, I am a psych major, and am studying to be a psychologist.

Well said.

Is Tom Cruise right about anything?

The answer - No.

What the shit does Tom Cruise know about psychology or science in general?

The answer - Nothing.

What's Tom Cruise good for?

The answer - Making a moron out of himself for comedians to exploit.

Heh,
You never cease to amuse BF...

Wait does Cruise hate psychiatry or psychology?
He knows nothing about either.
For the record: There is such a thing as chemical imbalance in the body.

Psychiatry and Psychology are basically the same thing, they both require study in the field of psychology, the main difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist is that a psychiatrist has a medical degree and a psychologist has a doctorate of philosophy or psychology (PhD or PsyD). Psychiatrists deal more with the medical aspect of the field and can prescribe meds.

And yes, indeed there are such things as chemical imbalances, and they're responsible for the majority of mental conditions (everything from depression to schizophrenia).

Originally posted by BackFire
Is Tom Cruise right about anything?

The answer - No.

What the shit does Tom Cruise know about psychology or science in general?

The answer - Nothing.

What's Tom Cruise good for?

The answer - Making a moron out of himself for comedians to exploit.

Yet he will make more in a year then most of us in a lifetime.

doesnt change the fact that he made a complete ass out of himself, and filmakers might look to others when casting for lead role in predicted cashbusters flicks

Originally posted by KidRock
Yet he will make more in a year then most of us in a lifetime.

Must give a hall of a blowjob, huh?

his life was forever changed when he lost goose.

Originally posted by Lana
Okay, where to start.

Psychology is indeed an actual science. Not a natural science (like biology or physics), persay, but still a science. What it is the study of the mind and human behaviors -- the word itself means "study of the mind".




It falls under the loose definition of science, which is essentially the study of "natural phenomena." I could categorize many types of belief systems as sciences using this definition.

Keep in mind that Astrology, Graphology, Phrenolgy, and many other fields of study claim themselves to be sciences using this definition as well.



Broad generalizations and techniques that don't rely on the scientific method. Like most forms of psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and other psychotherapies.

In addition to this it has been found that active placebos given to many having "chemical imbalances", are just as effective as the standard medications given to them to treat such imbalances.




A bit innaccurate. Theories are never completely discarded. The initial hypothesis behind a theory may change, however, the fundamentals which make up a theory usually remain the same.

The conclusion is generally the fundemental element still thought to exist, however, a different hypothesis is produced that gives a better explination as to why it exists.



Personally I think the whole scientology theology is kookoo, but the man did raise some valid points. Many automatically assume that everything they learn from science class or read from a science book to be the "absolute truth", which is a very dogmatic/close minded POV.



Attempting to get a degree in a particular field of study doesn't automatically equate your opinion as being valid.

It means you've studied the topic much more then most people, which means you will thus know more about the topic then most people, which means that you're opinion is generally going to be more valid then those who haven't spent the same amount of time/dedication learning a particular field - I.E. Tom Cruise - I.E. Dumbass hypocrite.

you forgott I.E. moron

Oh, I did.

My bad!

yeah better stay sharp man we wont tolerate too much slacking off when it comes to Mr Cruise

I'll be sure to be on my toes from now on!

oh your a ballet dancer?

Only if the price is right.

and I guess noone can come up with that amount of money

The flaw in Tom Cruise's arguement is that he is the one who said it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Is it really just a pseudoscience?

No. Of course it isnt.

Psychology is dependant on science. In order to study psychology of a mind you NEED to know the biology and structure of brain, from then you have a starting point on how to analyse particular things.

Its one of the reasons I didnt really enjoy Psychology at University, because it clashed with the way Sociology worked - and sociology is a social science.

The idea of pseudoscience assumes that there is no scientific back up - the fact that there are drugs such as Prozac and numerous other antidepressants suggests differently. Depression is a psychological disorder.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
It falls under the loose definition of science, which is essentially the study of "natural phenomena." I could categorize many types of belief systems as sciences using this definition.

Keep in mind that Astrology, Graphology, Phrenolgy, and many other fields of study claim themselves to be sciences using this definition as well.

Let's look at your definition of science again.



Does psychology observe and identify? Yes. Does it describe a phenomena? Yes. Does it do it through experimental investigation? Yes. Does it explain through forming theories? Yes. Is it a study of natural phenomena? Yes. Would something studied through psychology be considered an object of inquiry or study? Yes.

Sorry, but your shot your argument in the foot by bringing out that definition.



You don't know much about psychology, do you. Everything is found out through either research or active experimentation. Experiments that are indeed carried out using the scientific method. When a psychologist wants to do an experiment, he or she follows the scientific method: they first decide what it is they want to research, they form a hypothesis based on what they think will happen, they detail out how they will carry out the experiment, they then actually DO the experiment, they record their findings as data, and then they draw a conclusion based on these findings and either validate or invalidate their hypothesis. That IS following the scientific method.

Psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and psychotherapy have nothing to do with the scientific method as they are not experimental methods used to gather information; they are methods that are used that UTILIZE this information. There's a large difference.

Yes, placebos have been known to work for people. They've also been known to NOT work for people. Why? Some people simply have stronger willpower than others. If someone THINKS they are indeed taking the medication, it kick-starts their brain into making the chemicals that they may be short on -- or making less if they have too many. It doesn't mean that there are no such things as chemical imbalances. People take placebos thinking they're taking cold medicine and get better -- does this mean that viruses don't exist? No. It simply means that the power of the mind is greater than that of the body.



Completely discarded, no, I guess I shouldn't have said it that way. But there are many theories/hyphotheses that are thrown away, and years later someone may find it and build on it/completely rework it. That's how ALL sciences work.



Valid point? What would that be? That he doesn't know what he's talking about?



Actually, it does. As BackFire said, it means that it's a field that I have studied (and will be studying for quite a while longer), and therefore I know more about it than the average person, and therefore my opinion is far more educated than the average person.

Why don't you go read up about psychology a bit. Take a look at a textbook or two. Familiarize yourself with the topic a bit.



Actually, lil, psychology and sociology are fairly intertwined each other, as sociology is the study of how people behave within a society....I've taken courses in both and will be taking many more.

Originally posted by BackFire
Is Tom Cruise right about anything?

The answer - No.

What the shit does Tom Cruise know about psychology or science in general?

The answer - Nothing.

What's Tom Cruise good for?

The answer - Making a moron out of himself for comedians to exploit.

Well, at least he was good in 'Collateral'

Originally posted by Lana
Let's look at your definition of science again.


Okay..






Really brought some smoking guns with you to this discussion huh Lana? You must still be a bit angry over our evolution debate.

Anyway..I never stated that psychology was not a "science", so there's no argument for you to shoot down.

What I did state, however, is that many fields of study can be defined as "science" by the definition given in above.




Gathering information using the method you describe is scientific, however, stating that "experimental methods" with no scientific basis should be able utilize this information is "unscientific."

Explain to me how psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and psychotherapy are credible "scientific" techniques in treating mental ailments, and what scientific hypothesi were used to derive such techniques?



Your misrepresenting what I've posted sweety. I never stated that chemical imbalances do not exist. What I believe is that the assumption that these imbalances are the direct causes of many psychological disorders is a very bad one. As you stated above, active placebos have been given to individuals suffering from these "chemical imbalances", and many times they have the same effect on an individual as a drug used to treat the imbalance.

Your point on "willpower" only supports the argument that an individuals "emotional state" is the main cause of the "imbalance", rather than the "imbalance" being the cause of the "emotional state".

That's the problem with much of psychology, the cause and effect are at many times reversed, making people believe their bodies are responsable for the ways they behave, rather than their own attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs.



Thrown away. No. Reinterpreted. Yes. Regardless there are always fundamental principals to every theory. Without fundamentals, science would in itself have no basis to it.



That psychiatry, psychology, and other sciences that study human behavior have little more than assumption to validate them.



Actually I have, and sad to say..even with the 1 semester I took regarding the subject, I seem to have an equal if not "greater" grasp on understanding many of it principles than yourself....lol...but keep studying sweety..I'm sure you'll make a great "psuedoscientist" someday...

I'm limited on time right now so I can't really reply....

But hmmm. One semester that you took, vs. one and a half years that I've taken.

Yeah, sorry, I think I'm the one who's better educated in this topic.

An example. Parkinson's is considered a neuropsychological disorder. The symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are well established to be primarily due to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Chemical imbalance is the direct cause of the symptoms of the condition.
If neurochemical imbalances are not the underlying cause of psychological disorders then what are you proposing is the cause? Do you think Cruise is right and everything can be cured by vitamins and exercise.

tom cruise claims to be an expert on pyschiatry...he recieved his degree in pyschiatry in between his films. he knows all about psychiatry and anti-depressants and insists that mothers on anti-depressants cut off their babies arms...

and tom cruise also is an expert on people that are "glib"...he called Matt Lauer "glib"

that is a very big word for tom to say. I wonder if he knows how to spell that word.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An example. Parkinson's is considered a neuropsychological disorder. The symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are well established to be primarily due to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Chemical imbalance is the direct cause of the symptoms of the condition.
If neurochemical imbalances are not the underlying cause of psychological disorders then what are you proposing is the cause? Do you think Cruise is right and everything can be cured by vitamins and exercise.

My dad had Parkinson's Disease, same as Michael J.Fox, Janet Reno, Ali, and Rev Billy Graham. The loss of Dopamine is due to brain cells dying. It is a chemical imbalance and he needed Dopamine(Sinemet) which stimulated production of Dopamine.

tom cruise had no right to speak out against mothers on anti-depressants nor tell the public that pyschaitry is wrong, and the medications that people take for their depression is wrong.

he is a scientologist. he is brainwashed.

Yet, you're the one that's bringing it up in a completely unrelated discussion...



Only to you, my friend. Only to you.



Just like oh so many of them creationism "scientists".

the problem with psychology isn't that its not a science its that there is a problem with measuring psychological experiments

when studying human behaviour there are 2 problems with getting true scientific results...one is that if you conduct it in a totally controlled and scientific enviroment as is neccessary with most of biology, chemistry and physics based sciences...is that the thing you are studying(people) are usually aware of the situation and cannot be measured as acting like they would in a normal everyday setting

the second problem is that if you measure whatever it is you are looking for in a normal everyday situation then you cannot account for all the variables and therefor can never give an unrefutable conclusion

obviously there are areas of psychology which can be easily measured such as biological psychology and how certain areas of the brain physically respond to certain stimuli be they sensory inputs or drug induced changes...these can be measured in a controlled enviroment with reliable results

and for the record...i've studied forensic psychobiology and forensic science...so have both traditional science and psychological science in my education...personally i prefer my chemistry and biology

There really isn't such a thing as a perfectly controlled experiment. Quantum physics enacts variability on everything, doesn't it?
There really isn't any more precise manner to studying human psychology short of cloning a group of people and raising them in exactly controlled environments, and even then there are still many variables.
My studies are in neuroscience, though I am doing some psychology. Tom Cruise is an idiot.

one of the purest laws of any science...totally provable and unrefutable

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An example. Parkinson's is considered a neuropsychological disorder. The symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are well established to be primarily due to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Chemical imbalance is the direct cause of the symptoms of the condition.
If neurochemical imbalances are not the underlying cause of psychological disorders then what are you proposing is the cause? Do you think Cruise is right and everything can be cured by vitamins and exercise.

Chemical imbalances aren't always the cause of various emotional disorders, but rather the effect of various choices that individuals make. That's essentially what I was stating. I believe a lot of psychologists automatically equate a particular problem being caused by chemical imbalance, rather than the chemical imbalance being the direct result of various environmental factors in a person's life, such as an individual's attitude, beliefs, family history, job, social activities..etc..etc..

For example, I've seen children who live in households where there environment is a complete mess, and disorganized. In addition to this the parent uses no form of discipline on the child, the child rarely engages in activities with the parent, and the parent rarely takes the child out to engage in activities with other children.

The kid goes to school, not knowing how to interact with others..and starts acting out of control, is screaming for atttention, and is completely disorganized. The school then recomends that the child be taken to a psychologist, who automatically equates the child as being an ADHD/Autistic child...without taking into account the "eviornmental issues" that the child is dealing with.

The psychologist then prescribes a medication that does nothing but change the mood of the child, which will have no effect on the problems within the child's environment. Thus..the kid still has problems in school, albeit..they aren't as out of control, however, they still can't focus...still have difficulty making friends, etc...and now, they're all "doped up" on a mood altering drug. Sad really, I've seen so many kids suffering in situations like this.

This is not to say the chemical imbalances are not the cause of some neurological and emotional disorders, however, I do believe that many shrinks are in too much of a hurry to prescribe medications and make money, instead of analyzing the various environmental factors that could be causing the problems.

Medication should be the last step, not the first when dealing with psyche disorders such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, bi polar etc. All of which are generally related to a whole host of environmental factors. Even in cases like these, mood altering drugs should only be used in extreme cases, when all enviornmental factors have been taken into account, and changing them has had no effect on an individual's condition.

Originally posted by jaden101
the problem with psychology isn't that its not a science its that there is a problem with measuring psychological experiments


Exactly..as well as the techniques used as remedies for various effects found from the experiments...where is the science in psychotherapy or hypnosis? I have yet to have any psychologist explain to me how these techniques were in anyway derived from scientific studies...




Which is why I tend to question the results of a lot of studies, particulary since the environment that the studies are conducted with as you have stated, are not "everyday settings." In addition to this..Many studies that I've read about are just plain ridiculous, biased, and many outside factors are manipulated to get the desired results from the psychologists.





Well said. Just wanted to add that these experiments don't automatically point to drugs being the solution to treating various psychological problems.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Chemical imbalances aren't always the cause of various emotional disorders, but rather the effect of various choices that individuals make. That's essentially what I was stating. I believe a lot of psychologists automatically equate a particular problem being caused by chemical imbalance, rather than the chemical imbalance being the direct result of various environmental factors in a person's life, such as an individual's attitude, beliefs, family history, job, social activities..etc..etc..
For example, I've seen children who live in households where there environment is a complete mess, and disorganized. In addition to this the parent uses no form of discipline on the child, the child rarely engages in activities with the parent, and the parent rarely takes the child out to engage in activities with other children.
I'm generally of the opinion that most if not all disorders, have at least some level of genetic basis. Few (if any) are completely due to environmental factors, maybe smoking-induced lung cancer (however Christopher Reeve's wife was recently diagnosed with lung cancer and she's never smoked before, and she's not alone) and obesity-induced Type II diabetes (however non-obese people develop this too).
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The kid goes to school, not knowing how to interact with others..and starts acting out of control, is screaming for atttention, and is completely disorganized. The school then recomends that the child be taken to a psychologist, who automatically equates the child as being an ADHD/Autistic child...without taking into account the "eviornmental issues" that the child is dealing with.
Autism and ADHD aren't really comparable. I'm not a psychologist but I'd assume they'd do a bit more than what you described.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The psychologist then prescribes a medication that does nothing but change the mood of the child, which will have no effect on the problems within the child's environment. Thus..the kid still has problems in school, albeit..they aren't as out of control, however, they still can't focus...still have difficulty making friends, etc...and now, they're all "doped up" on a mood altering drug. Sad really, I've seen so many kids suffering in situations like this.
Methylphenidate passed through the same Phase I, II and III trials that every other pharmaceutical from AZT to paracetamol did. It may not be perfect but what alternative do you offer if a child genuinely has ADHD.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is not to say the chemical imbalances are not the cause of some neurological and emotional disorders, however, I do believe that many shrinks are in too much of a hurry to prescribe medications and make money, instead of analyzing the various environmental factors that could be causing the problems.
That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Medication should be the last step, not the first when dealing with psyche disorders such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, bi polar etc. All of which are generally related to a whole host of environmental factors. Even in cases like these, mood altering drugs should only be used in extreme cases, when all enviornmental factors have been taken into account, and changing them has had no effect on an individual's condition.
Whether or not it's the last or first step is really up to the clinicians. If a patient has Huntington's and has psychotic symptoms and risperidone is known to alleviate psychotic symptoms I don't see why it shouldn't be prescribed.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Chemical imbalances aren't always the cause of various emotional disorders, but rather the effect of various choices that individuals make. That's essentially what I was stating. I believe a lot of psychologists automatically equate a particular problem being caused by chemical imbalance, rather than the chemical imbalance being the direct result of various environmental factors in a person's life, such as an individual's attitude, beliefs, family history, job, social activities..etc..etc..

For example, I've seen children who live in households where there environment is a complete mess, and disorganized. In addition to this the parent uses no form of discipline on the child, the child rarely engages in activities with the parent, and the parent rarely takes the child out to engage in activities with other children.

The kid goes to school, not knowing how to interact with others..and starts acting out of control, is screaming for atttention, and is completely disorganized. The school then recomends that the child be taken to a psychologist, who automatically equates the child as being an ADHD/Autistic child...without taking into account the "eviornmental issues" that the child is dealing with.

The psychologist then prescribes a medication that does nothing but change the mood of the child, which will have no effect on the problems within the child's environment. Thus..the kid still has problems in school, albeit..they aren't as out of control, however, they still can't focus...still have difficulty making friends, etc...and now, they're all "doped up" on a mood altering drug. Sad really, I've seen so many kids suffering in situations like this.

This is not to say the chemical imbalances are not the cause of some neurological and emotional disorders, however, I do believe that many shrinks are in too much of a hurry to prescribe medications and make money, instead of analyzing the various environmental factors that could be causing the problems.

Medication should be the last step, not the first when dealing with psyche disorders such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, bi polar etc. All of which are generally related to a whole host of environmental factors. Even in cases like these, mood altering drugs should only be used in extreme cases, when all enviornmental factors have been taken into account, and changing them has had no effect on an individual's condition.

I agree that medication should be the last step taken regarding any psyche disorder but sometimes it has to be the first step in order to save a live or lives. Sometimes there is not enough time to work on the issues surrounding the individual that perpetuate the mental anquish and disorders.

I went through all the proper channels of therapy, consultation, physical exams, evaluations before I was put on an anti-depressant. I suffered from extreme anxiety, panic disorder and post partum depression after having 4 children in 5 years.

Having 4 children was MY CHOICE. Both me and my husband wanted a large family. The anxiety and depression was there but not evident until I had a series of stressors that put me on the brink of despair. I knew enough to see my doctor and I worked with my doctor and therapist faithfully and it was decided that I needed anti-depressants. There was never a threat of me harming myself or my children but I can't say that it never would have come to that point.

I may need the medication for the rest of my life and I have accepted that. But I have a great outlook on life and myself, and the bottom line is that I love myself.

I am enjoying my family and doing things that I love again. I am not hiding in the house, afraid to leave my home. If you have never been through this, you will never know what it is like.


I hate tom cruise for taking it upon himself to represent all the mothers of post partum depression. he hasn't a clue what it is like nor does nicole. The both of them have so many nannys to take care of their children that they will never have the anxiety and saddness that comes along with having children.

As for the ADHD children? I am a co-director of rel. ed at my church and I see over 400 children each year come through our program. We have over 100 kids with disabilities and we have to work with each child. We have ADHD children on medication and they are doing wonderful. We have children that are not on medication and they too are doing just fine.

We also have children that are not on meds coming from wonderful backgrounds and homes, and those children come in and bounce off the walls, and disrupt the class. We have no control over these children except to remove that child from the classroom, and have a one on one session. Much to the parents dislike.

One 9th grader threatened to come into the building and kill everyone. This was taking seriously as the child does have emotional problems but is not on any medication. He is no longer allowed in our program but will be home taught.

If my child was in a class where another child was disrupting the lessons? You better believe I would be down the throats of all the teachers and staff as my child has every right to a proper education and in a safe environment. I don't care what they do to that child to get him or her under control as long as MY child's concerns are taken care of.

Schools cannot give out meds to kids. Psychologists here in the US cannot write out scripts either unless you meant to write pyschiatrists.

Sure, money is involved with the scripts. It's a big business and we could debate all the conspiracies of the drug companies but that isn't what this is about.

If a person or child needs medications to control his/her behavior, then it must be done.

tom cruise is a scientologist. he is brainwashed by a dead ron l. hubbard who was a pyschiatrict patient for a few years and was on medications. I do not understand how hubbard professed anti medications since he needed them to control his obsessions.

scientologists are allowed to drink and get drunk but medications are evil. Go figure???

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm generally of the opinion that most if not all disorders, have at least some level of genetic basis. Few (if any) are completely due to environmental factors, maybe smoking-induced lung cancer (however Christopher Reeve's wife was recently diagnosed with lung cancer and she's never smoked before, and she's not alone) and obesity-induced Type II diabetes (however non-obese people develop this too).


It's definately possible for individuals to be genetically predisposed to particular types of disorders, however, even with an individual's genetic predisposition to a disorder, it doesn't take away from the impact one's environment/lifestyle/choices/attitudes has on their physical/mental well being.

The Dana Reeves example you gave is a good example that some problems do have genetic factors which cause them, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that genetics be automatically assumed to be the cause of problems in most situations. "Lifestyle choices" such as smoking or hanging around individuals who smoke should also be heavily considered when attempting to determine the causes of particular ailments as well.

For example...I've seen individuals who come from families where everyone is an alcoholic, not grow up to be an alcoholic themselves. I've also seen the reverse of this situation occur(no alcoholics in family, an individual becomes an alcoholic)

Many are of the idea that genetic composition, somehow negates human choice/responsabilities. This is a very bad assumption. Don't get me wrong, genetics do play a part in what shapes us, but not as great a part as many would like to believe.



Autism and ADHD are different types of disorders, sorry if it seemed as if I was trying to equate the too. What I was attempting to demonstrate in the example I gave, however, was that there are other factors that the individuals go through which manifest themselves in the same way, as those who are really suffering from these disorders. Not all children who are introverts should be considered "autistic." Particularly when they'r are a multitude of other environmental factors that the child has to go through each day. The same goes for children with ADHD, depression, bi polar, etc...




What I believe that there should be better diagnoses by practicioners. They shouldn't automatically assume that a child has a disorder that medicants will fix. Drugs should be the last option.



Yes it is..however..it's a factual one. Doctor's Offices are businesses. They need repeat customers to keep their businesses going. If you keep a person on meds..you get repeat business. If you cure a person and tell them that they're problem can be fixed by changing various things within their lifestyle, then guess what? You loose a customer..sad but true.



I'm not saying that clinicians shouldn't decide on what medications to prescribe when a legitimate problem arises. Again..I just don't believe their first diagnosis should be "med's will fix it" for all psychological ailments, particularly those that are known to be linked to environmental factors, and I definately feel that the general public should be able scrutinize their motives/methods/diagnosis in these situations.

Perhaps I simply have more faith in the medical profession than you do. Although I may be bias since I know quite a few medical students, and in those individuals at least I am quite certain that they are not in medicine just to make money. I had the grades and considered applying for medicine myself, and I didn't contemplate doing so purely to get rich.
I think an informed general public should be able to scrutinize how psychological disorders are treated as well. But I also think that Tom Cruise is an irresponsible idiot who knows absolutely nothing about what he's talking about.

Originally posted by Lana
*cracks knuckles*

Okay, where to start.

Psychology is indeed an actual science. Not a natural science (like biology or physics), persay, but still a science. What it is the study of the mind and human behaviors -- the word itself means "study of the mind".

Unscientific in what ways? You must realize that science is not something that is hard and fast and is something that is always changing based on what people find out, right? Psychology is studying people's minds and behaviors. Something that can be very erratic. It can come up with generalizations as to why people act/think a certain way, but as every person is different there will always be things that fall outside of what is the general consensus.

If you've studied anything about psychology you'll see how theories developed long ago are often changed or discarded entirely when new research comes into light, and that new theories are created all the time -- same as with natural sciences (or what is traditionally thought to be a science).

As for what Tom Cruise thinks about psychology.....the man doesn't know shit. Anyone who's taken as much as a high school psych course should know this.

And before you ask what my opinion matters or what knowledge I have of the subject, I am a psych major, and am studying to be a psychologist.

Well.......don't get me wrong but...err...that...kind of...a little bit...like...makes you biased......please don't hit me....

But actually nI personally don't think that Psychology, History, Literature and others actually wqualify as a real science...I believe it was just called science make it equal to "natural" sciences........

Doesn't make Psychology less valueable (although I think what Psychology does is just a way to describe easier what we cannot yet explain with Chemisty, Biology or Physics........)

Originally posted by CaptJackSparr0w
I agree that medication should be the last step taken regarding any psyche disorder but sometimes it has to be the first step in order to save a live or lives. Sometimes there is not enough time to work on the issues surrounding the individual that perpetuate the mental anquish and disorders.


That's what many would like for you to believe. I'm not trying to pass judgement, but the quick fix isn't always the best fix, and sometimes although it seems good at the time..it doesn't lead to the best end results.

For example...I got a patch on my tire..instead of getting a new one. The patch lasted for a while..but then it popped in the middle of the road..causing me to get in a front end accident with another individual. So now not only did I have the problem of the bad tire..but my entire front end needs to be replaced..




This is where I would think that other outside factor's come into play. Like what type of relationship you have with your husband, how much he supports you in child rearing, your finances, etc..etc. Having one kid..and its stressful as hell, however, having four back to back would make anyone..male or female stumble into a heep of depression.

I am a parent myself, a young single father who goes to school and works full time, in addition to having to pay bills on a month to month basis, in addition to having to deal with all the stressors of dealing with a kid, In addition to doing all this alone. But I realize that with all these outside factors I have to deal with, I'm still the one who's responsable for my actions/moods. Don't get me wrong..I'm not invalidating the fact that what you went through, I'm just saying that like you yourself alluded too, your "choice" to have 4 children was cause of your mental ailment..much like my choice of being a single parent is the cause of my stress. Again we can't reverse the cause and effect..and then expect for a magic medicine to cure us of the decisions we've made. Even if the medicine takes care of our moods for a little while, it's only a temporary..and does not solve the underlying problem of why we made the choices that we made which caused the problems to begin with.



True..he is a pampered rich boy and is brainwashed by that whole scientology doctrine, and who is very out of touch with the common man. Still I have to admit..the dude did make some valid points. Drugs should not be used as the solution to all pyshchological ailments.



I would have to wonder what type of environments the ADHD children without meds come from. What type of structure do they have in their home? Do their parents give them loving discipline, not just at home..but out in public as well? Many make the mistake of believing that just because parents provide financially for a child, that they are doing a good job parenting.

I've seen people who live in nice little suburban communities, with the white picket fences..still not be attentive to their children's emotional/physical/or psychological needs, thus causing more problems of children being diagnosed with mental ailments that they clearly do not have. Just flip on the TV..and watch the show nanny 911, or Supernanny..and you'll see plenty of examples of bad parenting..adversely effecting a child's moods/psychological development..

But if in your analogy the tire was meant to represent the brain...

Originally posted by jaden101
the problem with psychology isn't that its not a science its that there is a problem with measuring psychological experiments

when studying human behaviour there are 2 problems with getting true scientific results...one is that if you conduct it in a totally controlled and scientific enviroment as is neccessary with most of biology, chemistry and physics based sciences...is that the thing you are studying(people) are usually aware of the situation and cannot be measured as acting like they would in a normal everyday setting

the second problem is that if you measure whatever it is you are looking for in a normal everyday situation then you cannot account for all the variables and therefor can never give an unrefutable conclusion

obviously there are areas of psychology which can be easily measured such as biological psychology and how certain areas of the brain physically respond to certain stimuli be they sensory inputs or drug induced changes...these can be measured in a controlled enviroment with reliable results

and for the record...i've studied forensic psychobiology and forensic science...so have both traditional science and psychological science in my education...personally i prefer my chemistry and biology

Exactly right. As in with ANY sort of experiment, there are variables that can mess up the results. And when you're studying people, who are known to be erratic, it's just plain common sense that not everyone is going to act as expected -- or like everyone else. It's because every person is different, every person THINKS different, and every person has a different reason for doing what they do.

Whob -- what does psychotherapy even have to do with anything? Nothing. It is not a method of research (unless it's the research of problems that an individual has), it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is having someone talk out their problems, dreams, thoughts -- anything, listening and observing, making connections from what is said, and using this information to get to the bottom of the issue. It's not trying to test anything and technically it doesn't treat anything either -- it just solves a personal problem that the person may be having.



Sorry, but my point on willpower does not support your argument in anyway. Because as I said. People take placebos for cold medicine and get better. Does this mean their state of mind created the virus that got them sick? No. You cannot CAUSE your brain to create an imbalance like that; it happens. If that were true, we'd have many many more people with severe mental disorders than there are. If that were true, anyone who's ever felt depressed for any reason would wind up with chronic depression. Is that the case? No. However, if you THINK you're getting the medication, you can kickstart your brain into working properly, same as people who've taken placebos for cold medicine think they're getting the medicine and have managed to kickstart their immune systems into defeating the virus better.

Also remember that not everyone who takes a placebo has any effect from it; many don't.



And that is entirely not true. I would say that many years of research and experiments would make the findings a bit more than assumption. Same with natural sciences -- something doesn't become a theory because someone decided it might be true; it is tested repeatedly to see if the results always remain the same.



No. Because as I said, you cannot cause yourself to have a chemical imbalance. Because if it were possible, we would have either a lot more people than we do with severe mental disorders.....or a lot less. Do you think people really WANT to be suicidally depressed? I can tell you from experience that it's not a fun thing. Environmental factors can affect how someone acts, but it cannot cause the imbalances.



Number one. Psychologists do not prescribe medication, as I've said already in this thread. They have a doctorate, but as it's not a medical degree, they do not prescribe meds. That is what a psychiatrist does. If you've studied ANYTHING about the field of psychology you should know this.

Not everyone responds to meds the same way. Two people could have the exact same problem and take the same medication and have different results. That's why when someone is put on meds they usually have to have a checkup not long after they start taking it to see if it's working or not. If it isn't, they try something else. Yes, I agree that sometimes some doctors are a little quick to prescribe medication, but in a lot of cases it's the only thing that works for the person. In other cases it's a combo of meds and other treatments. It all, as I said, is down to the individual. Also do not forget the fact that many people go in requesting meds for their problems.

Real ADHD (not just a hyper kid), real clinical depression (not just whiny teenagers who claimed to be depressed because they were grounded), real anxiety (not just nervousness) and real bipolar (not just occasional mood swings) are all caused by chemical imbalances. They can be effected by one's environment, and these effects and make the disorder worse or better, but do not wholly CAUSE them. If you've known anyone personally who suffers one of these, or have one yourself, you'd know this.

Bardock -- yeah, I am biased. But it's simply because it's a topic where I know what I'm talking about, and ignorance pisses me off.

Well yes and I guess you nare mostly right with what you are saying but I wouldn't count Psychology as a Classical Science...I guess in a broader meaning you could call it a science, but I personally only take Natural Sciences as real science....the other fields are not less important just not real sciences.....

Social sciences are still real sciences. It doesn't have to be a natural science to be a real science.

People use things discovered in psychology all the time. Anyone ever wonder why there tends to be red decorations and stuff inside fast food restaurants? It's not because it looks cool the color red has been found to activate the portion in your brain that controls hunger.

Originally posted by Lana
Whob -- what does psychotherapy even have to do with anything? Nothing. It is not a method of research (unless it's the research of problems that an individual has), it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is having someone talk out their problems, dreams, thoughts -- anything, listening and observing, making connections from what is said, and using this information to get to the bottom of the issue. It's not trying to test anything and technically it doesn't treat anything either -- it just solves a personal problem that the person may be having.


Psychotherapy is a method used by many psychologists that has no scientfic basis to it. Many who utilize it in their practices put their patients under "hypnosis", a dream like state which enables the patient to interpret visions/hallucinations as being "repressed memories" or events that have actually happened to them, even though at times these "hallucinations" have never occurred. If Psychology really is a legitimate science, then how come the basis of many of its techniques to treat psychological disorders rely on a methods clearly derived from "mysticism" and "spirituality"? Would a surgeon at the hospital be able to preform such techniques before operating on a patients? I don't think soo..he'd probably have a malpractice suite filed against him.



Your anology is a poor one..seeing as how there is no cure for the virus that causes the common cold..there is only treatment for the symptoms of the virus. Still, even when placebos are given to individuals regarding ailments that can't be treated, it's quite possible for one's state of mind to effect the rate at which the body produces antibodies to rid itself from the virus. Did the placebo cause an indivuals body to produce the antibodies at a faster rate? No...the persons state of mind..or their "willpower" caused them to do this. I believe its called mind of matter..a principle that many believe in.



Again you've proven my point with your explanition. If an individual has the ability..whether it be a concious or subconcious, to alter their bodies chemical composition, that would tell you that is some cases, the chemical imbalance itself might not be the cause of the problem..but rather..environmental factors which effect an individuals mental state.

For example..If a person has a loved one who died and that person remains in a depressed state of mind for 2-3 years..what effect do you think this will have on that individuals body? Will it be in a normal state? I think you know the answer to that one.



True..but the same can be said from the medicants that are said to treat various psyche conditions. And the individuals that the medications do "help", are usually dependant upon the drug..which is another problem unto itself. What's the difference between these individuals and a crack junkie or alcoholic? None. The only difference is that one gets "high" the legal way, a way which allows the government/pharmaceutical companies/and practicioners to monetarily benefit from.



People studied the earth for many years and attempted to validate that it was the center of the universe, that it was flat, and that roaches and rats were the result of "spontaneuous generation" Until one or two people got smart and said.."That just ain't right."

Seriously Lana..every argument can not always be validated by what someone else has told you, something that you've read, or the fact that it's been studied over and over..break the mold sweety..don't be a "groupthinker"..be a "independent thinker"



If a placebo does not cause you to get better, and your brain begins to produce chemical to correct the imbalance, then subconciously..you are causing yourself to fix the imbalance. The imbalance could be caused by a multitude of things, such as poor diet, sleep paterns, lifestyle, etc..but ultimately..the fact that an individual can change this balance within themself..points to the fact that many times..they're choices/attitiudes/lifestyles are the direct cause of the imbalance.





Stating that a psychologist prescribes medications was mistake on my part. It still doesn't negate the fact the clinical psychologists many times have direct impacts on the conditions that individuals are diagnosed with.




Agreed..but I never have stated that meds should never be used. I just said that they should only be used in "extreme" circumstances. Do you really believe its good practice to let a person who claims to be in a severe mental state to make decisions regarding what medications they should take?



The problem with your rationale is that your assumming that the imbalances are the main sources of the problem. I'm stating that in many cases..the imbalances are actually the result of larger environmental issues. It not stating that it not possible for such an imbalance to really cause a legitimate problem...again..what I'm just stating is that it's foolish to come up with the auto assumption of "imbalance" = "problem", without taking environmental factors into account.



The only ignorance Lana my dear that you are demonstrating is your own..you've managed to point out that I messed up in one instance regarding my terminology(ie Psychologist vs Psychiatrist) however, you've done little else to demonstrate that you're opinions are valid.

You've also shown that you are just as dependant on "drug" like treatments to validate your opinions/ego as any person with an other person with an emotional disorder. However, the "drug" that treats your condition is the regurgitated lessons from your psyche book/class/professor.

And what exactly makes you an expert?

Most psychiatrists who initially use hypnosis obviously aren't very good. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't use hypnosis because it's pretty much bullshit. If they do, it's usually because the patient requested it.

Psychotherapy, in the literal sense, is perfectly acceptable as a way to try and solve ones problems. Because it's simple human nature to feel better after talking out your problems to someone else, especially if that someone knows what type of answeres to give to make the person feel better.



Everybody gets much of their informaton from an outside source, either through research, school, verbal communication, reading, etc. How else does one gain knowledge about something other then looking at some form of data, or experiencing it themselves, which isn't possible for most people. What's an independant thinker? One who doesn't look at any data or information and just comes to whatever conclusion makes immediate sense to him after first pondering a particular topic?

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
And what exactly makes you an expert?

I never claimed to be an expert..but I haven't gone around stating "I studied psychology for a year and a half..so I know more than most!!"

Anyway If we really want to get into semantics, I could state that anyone who lacks the common sense to know that "Buddhism" is a "religion", should not be considered as an "authority" on any topic. I don't want to mention any names though..cough..Lana..cough...Adam Poe..cough..Backfire..cough...Tpt..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I never claimed to be an expert..but I haven't gone around stating "I studied psychology for a year and a half..so I know more than most!!"

Anyway If we really want to get into semantics, I could state that anyone who lacks the common sense to know that "Buddhism" is a "religion", should not be considered as an "authority" on any topic. I don't want to mention any names though..cough..Lana..cough...Adam Poe..cough..Backfire..cough...Tpt..

You do realize I didn't even participate in that discussion, right?

The discussion I took part in was the creationism being taught in school as science discussion. It just so happens both were being discussed within the same thread.

Nice attempted swipe though, woulda had me if your information wasn't bullshit.

Originally posted by BackFire
Psychotherapy, in the literal sense, is perfectly acceptable as a way to try and solve ones problems. Because it's simple human nature to feel better after talking out your problems to someone else, especially if that someone knows what type of answeres to give to make the person feel better.


So how is that a science..talking to people about their problems is a "practical" approach to helping them, not a "scientific" one.



The difference being..some actually know how to think outside of the box, and formulate their own opinions based on the information they've gathered. That's what I believe "free thinking" is. Unfortunately for some, this style of thinking is a foreign concept. Without free thinkers in science, we would have missed out on a lot of pertinent discoveries within the past couple of centuries.

Originally posted by BackFire
You do realize I didn't even participate in that discussion, right?

The discussion I took part in was the creationism being taught in school as science discussion. It just so happens both were being discussed within the same thread.

Nice attempted swipe though, woulda had me if your information wasn't bullshit.

I try..

Seriously though..I forgot that you weren't involved in that Buddhism discussion. My bad dude.

Never said that that particular aspect was scientific. It's not. However, that doesn't mean psychology as a whole is not scientific. There's a lot more to psychology then doctor to patient aspect of psychiatry.



I agree, however, you can't conciously be a free thinking about every particular subject, going out of your way to try to come to a different conclusion then the norm simply "because" would be bad, it's not something one should even think about, it just happens to some if they study something long enough. If you look at research and it crosses your mind that something may not fit in the given conclusion, and you have an idea as to what an alternative conclusion may be, by backing it up with valid reasoning then that's great, but it's rare. You can't conciously be a free thinkiner, is my point.

What then, in the world of medical science, is the proper time line for holding back on medications from patients? Since each patient is in front of the doctor, the doctor has to make an on the spot decision whether to medicate or not. The doctor doesn't have time to check out the patient's background or environment and realistically, the doctor has to rely on all the info that the patient tells the doctor.

If a patient is harmful to others or suicidal, and if the decision is to medicate the patient immediately, there is no time to delve into the patients past nor living situation. That would come after the initial treatment. Time is important in most serious situations and it is to save the life of the patient and to prevent the patient from hurting or killing others.

Mentally ill patients sometimes do not have the support at home, or if they do have the support, may refuse to accept the help, refuse to take their medications and right out, are a threat to the community.

And if this person cannot function in our community without supervision or medication, that person should not be out in the general population.

Had Mr. Dix taken his medication and had he been under supervision, he would have never made it to the subway platform in NYC, where he pushed Kendra Webdale in front of a subway train, killing her instantly. NY STATE passed "Kendra's Law" in 99. The law provides for assistance for mentally ill patients, keeps tracks of their needs, placements, medications while also protecting you and me.

How would you feel if a mentally ill(not disturbed) person moved next door to you and stopped the medication because of public pressure from the media, scientologists and tom cruise? Yes, there are people that will stop what is best for them?

I don't believe in the power of suggestion...i.e. I feel good if I take Effexor or if I take a placebo. I know damn well when I miss a dose.

If I have a cold, I do what I can to relieve the symptoms so I can move along with my life and family. I can't afford to be sick. It might just be coincidence that I feel better after I take my vitamin C tablets but I am damn hell going to try to do whatever I can to make me feel better to get up and out.

As for tom and his scientology, their views are about the destruction of people by use of medications. They have no concerns about the abuse of alcohol, since they are allowed to drink as much as they want. Alcohol is a drug. Is alcohol considered a drug?
A drug is any non-nutritional chemical that alters the body functions producing physical, psychological or behavioral changes. Alcohol fits this description and is a drug. Double edged sword here...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's a dogmatic style of thought. An individual's opinion may be more informative than anothers..but that doesn't necessarily equate it to being "valid."
For example I could study for years that the world was flat, however, a clerk from Walmart could pick up a magazine article that states the world was round. Who has the more informative opinion? I do. Who's opinion is "valid"? The Clerk from Wal mart.
I'm generally of the school of thought that a person with no knowledge of a subject cannot credibly voice their opinion on said subject. Also if a person has more knowledge on a subject their opinion is more valid and more credible. Stephen Hawkin's opinions on physics are infinitely more valid than mine.
That clerk thing is a horrible analogy by the way.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm generally of the school of thought that a person with no knowledge of a subject cannot credibly voice their opinion on said subject. Also if a person has more knowledge on a subject their opinion is more valid and more credible. Stephen Hawkin's opinions on physics are infinitely more valid than mine.
That clerk thing is a horrible analogy by the way.

I get all my information from clerks at Walmart..doesn't everybody?..lol.....

I agree with you for the most part..my basic point is just that not all opinions of those who have "accredited degrees" should be labled as valid..nor should the opinion of an individual who doesn't have a degree be labeled as "invalid"..that's all I was saying...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's a dogmatic style of thought. An individual's opinion may be more informative than anothers..but that doesn't necessarily equate it to being "valid."

For example I could study for years that the world was flat, however, a clerk from Walmart could pick up a magazine article that states the world was round, and then explain this belief to me. Who has the more informative opinion? I do. Who's opinion is "valid"? The Clerk from Wal mart. Thats is in itself a flawed argument. You say you could "study for years that the world was flat" No you can't. Unless you study wrongly, Unless you purposly ignore all evidence to the contrary. If you study all aspects of the shape of the earth it would be clear that it could not possibly be flat, and then YES your argument would be more informative opinion. But if you have a well developed but obviously WRONG thesis or whatever you want to call it, yours is NOT more informative, it is simply more wrong.




No. you missed the ENTIRE point. Something is a science if it follows a set of predetermined guidlines. Those include performing a replicatable test and publishing your reports and sufficently defending them. These are collectivly refered to as the Scienific Method. Anyone with a grade school education should know that...



I think what TO ment was that you can more easily assert theroys of Natural Science. With Phycology (Which I can't spell) your depeding more upon the human variable, so you have to look at many and make a generalization, which makes things not true for individuals, hence the placebo effect. SOME people are affected by them, and some are not. Thats a Generalization based on tests. As opposed to a straight theoy like Gravity, where you can preform tests and definitly assert that all cases that follow the constant x then an affect y will happen. With humans it becomes more complex because what might affect one person, may not work the same for another. You can still make generalizations, but you will find more exceptions. These exceptions don't make it as psudo-science, it just means your workign with Humans, and thus more varibles.


First of all, she said that you need to be able to replicate something REGARDLESS of spirituality, meaning if your Christian or Hindu, the experiment will end up the same. Which is not true for religious led beliefs, where in non belief in the entity voids the belief all together.


Hypnosis is NOT a science and NOT a part of valid Phycology (Still can't spell it!) it is like you said, something like a placebo, if they believe in it, it may work for them, but disbelief will make it not work. Phycology is different. I am not an expert on the ins and out's of what exactly it deals with, you are gonna have to ask Lana about that.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Thats is in itself a flawed argument. You say you could "study for years that the world was flat" No you can't. Unless you study wrongly, Unless you purposly ignore all evidence to the contrary. If you study all aspects of the shape of the earth it would be clear that it could not possibly be flat, and then YES your argument would be more informative opinion. But if you have a well developed but obviously WRONG thesis or whatever you want to call it, yours is NOT more informative, it is simply more wrong.


Uhh yes you can. I could have all the access to all the information in the world, and still have the wrong answer to the simple question..Is the world flat..or is it round? Just because the information is there, it doesn't necessarily mean that an individual has to accept it or believe in it. People choose what they do/do not want to believe all the time, regardless of any "valid" information presented before them.



You guys are making this difficult, because you keep on changing the guidelines as to what classifies a belief system as a science. But its okay, I'll play along.

So by your current rationale..we can now classify Phrenology, Astrolgy, Graphology, Intelligent Design, and many other concepts as science as well. They all follow a set of "predetermined guidelines." They all perform replicatable tests. And they all have reports published which sufficiently defend them.




How is making broad generalizations scientific? It seems to me as this debate drags on..the guidelines as to what determines a science keep on changing to suit yours/others arguments. Regardless of how many "variables" are present when conducting an experiment, it still is necessary that it follow a set group of "standards" to classify it as being "scientific." Come on buddy..as you pointed out in your response above..a grade schooler should be able to understand a simple concept such as this.



What?!! You can replicate tests in Astrology, Intelligent Design, Phrenology, Graphology, and a multitude of other similar "sciences."



Never stated that hypnosis was a science, I did however state that it was one of many "metaphysical techniques" used by psychologists in their practices. According to Omega, this essentially invalidated Psychology as a science, due to the fact that many of the techniqes and theories used to treat patients are not..



Call me crazy..but I don't understand how energybreathing, rebirthing, reparenting, or repressed memory therapy, or hypnosis fall under these guidelines.

For one thing, not many psychologists use or believe that hypnosis works. I don't think it works. But some people do, and they use it. If you think this discredits psychology as being scientific....well, that's your problem.

Phrenology was completely discredited over 150 years ago. Astrology and Graphology are seen to be as authentic as reading palms and tarot cards. Intelligent Design I won't even touch because that's a whole other debate that I really don't have the energy to deal with right now. So. What are these 'tests' you can carry out, replicate, and get the same results with these? Simply replicating the test isn't enough -- you have to get the same or very very similar results for it to qualify.

Also, you don't seem to understand that the research aspects of psychology are completely seperate from the patient treatment aspects. Many psychologists will ONLY do research, many others will ONLY do clinical treatments, and some will do both. The research aspects are purely scientific, and follow the scientific method. When experimenting with human behavior you must be very careful as it must be done in a natural environment; else the results will not be accurate. But in doing it in a natural environment, you are open to many variables that are out of your control. It also comes down to the fact that people simply react differently to the same thing. Hence yes, the theory would be a generalization. But they are not broad generalizations; they tend to be pretty specific in reality. If someone repeats the same experiment under the same conditions, they will get the same results from the vast majority of the test subjects. Not all, most likely, but a high percentage. That's what makes it valid, and that's what makes it scientific.

Also, the 'nonscientific' methods of treatment are NOT used to treat mental disorders -- they're used to help treat someone who is suffering some sort of trauma. Ever been upset about something, talked it over with a friend, and felt better? That's the basis of psychotherapy -- the patient talks about anything and everything -- dreams, how they've been acting/feeling lately, random thoughts -- and the psychologist observes the patient's words and actions. They use analyze what they find to discover the root of the problem. I'd say even that is pretty scientific in it's way, as it involves the gathering and analyzing of data to solve a problem.

Omega -- random question, but I can't remember what degree it is that you have in physics....do you have a master's or doctorate?

Originally posted by Lana
For one thing, not many psychologists use or believe that hypnosis works. I don't think it works. But some people do, and they use it. If you think this discredits psychology as being scientific....well, that's your problem.


Techniques used by practitioners of a science, whether they be used for reasearch or treatment purposes...give one a general idea as to whether or not a science should be deemed "credible"

Would we accept brain surgery as "scientific" if it involved waving a pendulum in front of a person's face, and having them recount repressed memories?!!



A Graphologist can test various consistencies/inconsistancies within an individual's handwriting and get consistent empirical results.

An Astrologist can examine various consistencies/inconsitancies within star formations and get consistent empirical evidence to support their beliefs.

A Creation Scientest can perform and replicate experiments which provide consistent empirical evidence of the designs that make up the universe and nature, as well as the probabilities of life's existence without an intelligence guiding it.




So now you're stating that only a concept's "research" methods must utilize the "scientific method" in order for it to be classified as a science?
Okay..well since you've now just switched the guidelines around again, I guess its only fair to state that Astrology, Graphology, Intelligent Design, and many other concepts should now be classified as sciences, seeing as how they all provide "research aspects" which include a hypothesis, experimentation, and consistent empirical data.

Seriously..Can any of you come up with set standards of determining what classifies a concept as a science, and adhere to them? Or do you just change them, depending on whether or not it suits your arguments/beliefs?



Regardless of how you choose to explain it, it is very bad assumption to deem an experiment that has many "uncontrollable variables" and that makes many "generalizations" as scientific. What you've described sounds more like a "practical" approach to gathering information, not a "scientific" one. Many like to call this system of gathering information "common sense."





Grossly inaccurate Lana..psychotherapy is used to treat a multitude of pscyhological disorders ranging from techniques such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy(used to treat Insomniacs) to Holding Therapy(used to treat ADHD and Autistic children) With that being stated, please give me an explination as to how the following pysche techniques have any type of credible scientific basis to them:


Hypnosis
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Interactional Group Therapy
Critical Incident stress debriefing
Repressed Memory Therapy
Holding Therapy
Eye Movement Desentization
Rebirthing
Reparenting
Energy Breathing
Relaxation Therapy

Originally posted by Lana
Social sciences are still real sciences. It doesn't have to be a natural science to be a real science.

People use things discovered in psychology all the time. Anyone ever wonder why there tends to be red decorations and stuff inside fast food restaurants? It's not because it looks cool the color red has been found to activate the portion in your brain that controls hunger.
I know that and I know that there are other things that use psychology (for example Supermarkets use it) but somehow....just think aboot a "scientist" .....is a "scientist" someone that thinks aboot psychology...is Freud a "scientist" ...I personally can't say they are...sorry...I know it fits the new definition of science...but...well I like to believe the classical sciences as true sciences......

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Is it really just a pseudoscience? Personally I believe that some aspects of it are very "unscientific" However, I wouldn't completely discredit everything about the field.

As I scientist I agree with him in part and you in whole.

No. Tom Cruise is an ignoramous.

Originally posted by Lana
Actually, lil, psychology and sociology are fairly intertwined each other, as sociology is the study of how people behave within a society....I've taken courses in both and will be taking many more.

Actually Sociology is way broader than that. It studies how society works. Marx was a sociologist, not a psychologist. So was Durkhim, and so was Erving.
Sociology comes closer to philosophy than it does to psychology in my experience.

Im sure you've taken lots of courses, and I hope you continue to do so, as its a very useful and interesting subject, but the level at which Im studying it and the level at which you are currently doing it are not the same.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No. Tom Cruise is an ignoramous.


That is perhaps also true, know tell me about your mother........... little psych jk not dissing your mum!

i think the psychiatric community is tainted by junk science for the sake of boosting drug sales, which needs to be stopped. its because of that that the credibility of psychiatry is hurting. but to idiots like tom cruise, the idea that something is not perfect renders it useless.

With the many debates going on about various practices in the field of psychology, and the ever evolving mass of information that seems to rewrite previous concepts or schools of thought, I find it astonishingly useless to give a flying f*ck what a celebrity's opinions of the issues, no matter what they are, may be.

Yes, I agree!

This is extremely silly.

Of course psychology is a science- by its very definition and origin, it cannot be anything else. It is the process of applying the scientific method to understand the operation of the human mind

(and for the love of God, it would be nice if everyone remembered the difference between that and psychiatry, which is the medicial practice of treating mental illness- whilst the principles may be similar, a psychologist doesn't have to be involved wit treatment of any kind, and as earlier mentioned, only a psychiatrist is qualified to take a medical approach to a mental problem).

Whether modern psychology has succeeded in making useful conclusions out of that approach is an entirely different question.

Whether the application of many psychologists who proffer treatment is scientific is, again, another question.

But is psychology in itself a science? Absolutely. It cannot exist without the scientific method, and many people who pursue the field are shocked by just how much hard, unforgiving scientific research they have to do.

And the point about who is kore qualified to speak on the subject has reached ridiculous proportions also. Yes, it is possible for the clerk to know more than the scholar of the subject. But it is very unlikely. It has been said that studying the subject does not make the person automatically right. Nope- but it makes the person more likely to know what he/she is talking about and hence makes their opinion, all other matters being equal, worth more than the layman's- or the person who has studied less- in any debate involving the particulars of the subject at hand. If the debate was purely on the broad classification of psychology then you could claim bias, but as the discussion seemed to have become more about the discipline of psychology actually consists of... then the student opinion is definitely worth more.

Simple as that. I am sorry if anyone is uncomfortable with the fact that the person with the superior study of the subject will be regarded as having the superior viewpoint- but that is the simple logic of life, so get used to it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Marx was a sociologist, not a psychologist.

That's definitely only an opinion! Tell that to Wallon.

Talking of Wallon, he had an extensive take on the subject we are talking about...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/wallon/works/1951/ch16.htm

I'm officially sick and tired of hearing, reading, or talking about Tom Cruise. That attention whore needs to roll over and die. Moving on....

Originally posted by WindDancer
I'm officially sick and tired of hearing, reading, or talking about Tom Cruise. That attention whore needs to roll over and die. Moving on....

And yet you read and post in a thread entitled,"Was Tom Cruise right about psychology?".


Interesting........

Yup! Clearly time for WD to go see a Psychol-iatirst so he can be checked into the correct funny farm.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is extremely silly.

Of course psychology is a science- by its very definition and origin, it cannot be anything else. It is the process of applying the scientific method to understand the operation of the human mind

(and for the love of God, it would be nice if everyone remembered the difference between that and psychiatry, which is the medicial practice of treating mental illness- whilst the principles may be similar, a psychologist doesn't have to be involved wit treatment of any kind, and as earlier mentioned, only a psychiatrist is qualified to take a medical approach to a mental problem).

Whether modern psychology has succeeded in making useful conclusions out of that approach is an entirely different question.

Whether the application of many psychologists who proffer treatment is scientific is, again, another question.

But is psychology in itself a science? Absolutely. It cannot exist without the scientific method, and many people who pursue the field are shocked by just how much hard, unforgiving scientific research they have to do.

And the point about who is kore qualified to speak on the subject has reached ridiculous proportions also. Yes, it is possible for the clerk to know more than the scholar of the subject. But it is very unlikely. It has been said that studying the subject does not make the person automatically right. Nope- but it makes the person more likely to know what he/she is talking about and hence makes their opinion, all other matters being equal, worth more than the layman's- or the person who has studied less- in any debate involving the particulars of the subject at hand. If the debate was purely on the broad classification of psychology then you could claim bias, but as the discussion seemed to have become more about the discipline of psychology actually consists of... then the student opinion is definitely worth more.

Simple as that. I am sorry if anyone is uncomfortable with the fact that the person with the superior study of the subject will be regarded as having the superior viewpoint- but that is the simple logic of life, so get used to it.

And this leads us to Philosophy "Is it possible to understand the workings of a mind".

Interestingly applying "scientific method", does not a Science make.

Lets look at just one peice of hilarious Psychology (except for those involved) of the last twenty years........................... Recovered memories, this alone shows Psychology/Psychiatry as flawed

http://www.bfms.org.uk/site_pages/newspage.htm#rvx



Recovered Memories highly scientific

A single piece?

That's like saying the Ether phenomenon undermined Physics as a science. Meanwhile, valid science from a presumably more competent psychologist destroyed the 'recovered memory' idea.

A discipline that requires the scientific method to show any results IS a science. And Psychology does that. Any Psychology ideas that have been garnered without the scientific method are invalid.

The difference between Psychology and things like phrenology is that only the former has had objectively valid scientific method applied to it to bear useful conclusions.

And again, you lump psychology and psychiatry together- a MAJOR error. Psychiatry is a huge part of modern medical science and is ervy silly indeed to dismiss.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A single piece?

That's like saying the Ether phenomenon undermined Physics as a science.

A discipline that requires the scientific method to show any results IS a science. And Psychology does that. Any psychology ideas that have been garnered without the scientific method are invalid.

I could go for lots of others but I was moving the debate forward.

Oh well guess I will

A Freudian theory proved - The Guardian, 9th January 2004
by Tim Radford
Psychologists have proved Sigmund Freud's repressed memory theory. What has always sounded like a contradiction in terms - that the brain can remember to forget - has a neurological basis.

Michael Anderson of the University of Oregon and John Gabrieli of Stanford University in California report in Science today that they made volunteers learn 36 pairs of words, such as ordeal-roach, steam-train, and jaw-gum.

They tested them with the first word in the pair and set them the challenge either of thinking of the second word or suppressing their awareness of it. To do the latter they used the part of the brain which comes into play when humans stop themselves performing an involuntary action.

The control of unwanted memories was linked with extra activity in the right and left frontal cortex which in turn led to reduced activity of the hippocampus, the part of the brain used to remember experience. The more volunteers activated their frontal cortexes, the better they were at suppressing unwanted memories.

Bollocks as my previous post showed.

Another topic

http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html

http://skepdic.com/forer.html

Karl Popper explains the problems of Psychology better than I ever could here:-

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html

I don't know if you know who Popper is so heres a biography:

http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/intro_popper/intro_popper.html


The biggest problem I have with Psychology is like in the CLeveland case its mistakes directly affect people

Well, first of all, you again ignore that it took good psychology to demolish the bad psychology in your first example.

That this is again challenged by another group of psychologists is just how science works. You say your previous post says it was bollocks. it does no such thing; it says there is disagreement over the truth. Your selective interpretation of that is poor.

I have no idea of the relevance of your next two sources. The first is an attack on one form of psychoanalysis as practiced by Freud- not even an attack on the whole field, and it is wrong to say that psychoanalysis = psychology. The article itself praises the field in general at its conclusion- did you bother to read it?

Your next piece talks of how psychologists discovered the Forer effect as a means of explaining the invalidity of things like Astrology and other pseudosciences. Thanks for showing a phenomenon observed and discovered by psychology, but that has WHAT do do with your case, exactly?

You then have an opinion piece- rather than evidence- again attacking certain parts of psychology, of the Freudian style, much as good psychologists today do.

So, having just posted NOTHING of any use to your argument at all... I hope you are happy, because that was amazingly feeble!

Your problem is not with psychology. It is with some psychologists. It so happens there are bad physicists and chemists, you know.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, first of all, you again ignore that it took good psychology to demolish the bad psychology in your first example.

That this is again challenged by another group of psychologists is just how science works. You say your previous post says it was bollocks. it does no such thing; it says there is disagreement over the truth. Your selective interpretation of that is poor.

I have no idea of the relevance of your next two sources. The first is an attack on one form of psychoanalysis as practiced by Freud- not even an attack on the whole field, and it is wrong to say that psychoanalysis = psychology. The article itself praises the field in general at its conclusion- did you bother to read it?

Your next piece talks of how psychologists discovered the Foret effect as a means of explaining the invalidity of things like Astrology. Thanks for showing a phenomenon observed and discovered by psychology, but that has WHAT do do with your case, exactly?

You then have an opinion piece- rather than evidence- again attacking certain parts of psychology, of the Freudian style, much as good psychologists today do.

So, having just posted NOTHING of any use to your argument at all... I hope you are happy, because that was amazingly feeble!

Your problem is not with psychology. It is with some psychologists. It so happens there are bad physicists and chemists, you know.


My problem is with bad theories, little in psychology beyond common sense is quantifiable the stats used in most psychology that goes beyond the commonsense level are often flawed. As usual when you don't like someones argument you dismiss it.

Did you study Psychology Ush?

Most Freud is discredited as far as Psychologists are concerned today, unfortunately little of any relevance has replaced it.

Chemists tend to have more quantifiable results and agree more on fundamentals.

That's certainly opinion and highly incorrect opinion as well! PLENTY has replaced it, just there is continuing and vigorous debate about what is right- as with all good science!

"little in psychology beyond common sense is quantifiable the stats used in most psychology that goes beyond the commonsense level are often flawed. As usual when you don't like someones argument you dismiss it."

Opinion! I do not see it supported by facts! Not surprising, because the facts you try and post rebound on you so badly...

Nope, not a psychologist. Just able to apply logic- and also able to read my sources before I post them, gee...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's certainly opinion and highly incorrect opinion as well! PLENTY has replaced it, just there is continuing and vigorous debate about what is right- as with all good science!

"little in psychology beyond common sense is quantifiable the stats used in most psychology that goes beyond the commonsense level are often flawed. As usual when you don't like someones argument you dismiss it."

Opinion! I do not see it supported by facts! Not surprising, because the facts you try and post rebound on you so badly...

Nope, not a psychologist. Just able to apply logic- and also able to read my sources before I post them, gee...

I see

Well If there is any scientific field where pseudoscience is not only common, but has actually become widely accepted by the establishment, it would have to be psychology. Unlike fields such as physics or biology, some of the most ridiculous quackery has taken hold in clinical psychology and has even reached the point where for many lay people, they see more of the quackery than of real science.
I have given examples to support this position and quoted Karl Poppers opinion on it.
Unlike you whilst I am not a Psychologist I do have a degree in a "real" Science, "Molecular Biology. I have also had to study a lot of Psychology for work, most of which is commonsense or has a political reason or is quackery. I have given examples of where Psychology taken to extremes damages lives.

The Cruise, Laurer - Ritalin issue is a little more complex than the debate we are having.

The thing which used to make me laugh as an undergraduate was Psychologists had so few lectures. It's different for Psychiatry, which Cruise actually criticised; as much of that involves Drugs with actions that can be quantified although not necessarily understood. The action of most of these drugs is actually usually pretty easy to understand, as they are often balancing a chemical imbalance or having a specific effect on neuro transmitters. However how these actually effect mood in the brain itself is not really understood. In this you are debating something different again and it is here Psychiatry and Psychology enter Quackery.

The knowing anothers mind aspect Hope this helps you

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is extremely silly.

Of course psychology is a science- by its very definition and origin, it cannot be anything else. It is the process of applying the scientific method to understand the operation of the human mind


Okay..just to clear things up a bit..I'm going to give a couple of broad definitions of the scientific method...



The "scientific method" can be applied to any concept which embodies the "systematic pursuit of knowledge", which utilizes a "collection of empirical data through observation/experiment" upon the "formulation of a hypothesis"

So in lamans terms anything that has a hypotheis, is observed, has data supporting it, and has experimentation done on it qualifies as a "science." Using these broad guidelines..I could make "shoe tying" into a science. An example of this is given below.


Shoeology..(The study of shoe tying..originator..whobdamandog)

a) hypothesis = The best technique to tie a shoe is "criss-crossapplesauce" not "bunnie ears"

b) Experiment = Attempt to tie a shoe utilizing criss-cross applesauce technique and then by using bunny rabbit ears technique multiple times...record which one helps me tie the shoe faster.

c) Results = Emperical evidence shows that after many times of tying shoes, criss-cross applesauce is the best way to tie.

Theory of Cris Cross Applesauce - After Researching time and time again..it has been determined by "shoelogist" whobdamandog that criss-cross applesauce is the most effective method of tying shoes.

Sounds a bit rediculous huh? I think You get the point..

Regardless of whether psychology is "defined" as a science is not the question being asked. the real question is..what makes it a "credible" one? Hell..if we are to go strictly by your rationale..and except every concept as a "credible science" based soley on its "definition" alone...then its only fair to classify Astrology , Phrenology, Graphology and a multitude of others as "credible sciences."





Well obviously this particular response is directed towards myself..seeing as how I made the mistake in "one" post of labeling a psychologist as "prescribing medication." We all make mistakes sometimes..if I do recall..there was a certain someone in another thread who made the mistake of saying Creationism" was not a "theory".....

Ushgarak states that Creationism is not a "theory"

And the same group of intellectuals that have validated psychology as a "credible" science, are the same individuals that stated "Buddhism" was not a religion in the thread below...

Lana & evolution crew state that Buddhism is not a religion....lol..and they make light of my credibility?!!!

Okay I believe that's enough with the "semantical" examples. I just wanted to demonstrate that we all make mistakes at times. Playing a game of "credibility" is silly. And it never really gets anywhere. After all, we are all debating on a Comic Book/Sci fi/Movie Forumn. I think all of our "credability" flew out the window a looong loong time ago...

So lets just leave the whole.."you got the word/phrase wrong" out of this debate.

Back on topic, regardless of whether or not a psychologist prescribes medication for a mental ailment (Although I believe in some US states they do, and in many states they are currently working towards legislation to allow them to do so) It still doesn't change the fact that clinical psychologists are at many times the first stop when it comes to diagnosing many psyche disorders.



In Laman's terms yes..it is a science..but again..just because a concept is "defined" as a science, one should not automatically assume that it is a "credible" one...



Your assumption on what determines an argument/opinion to be valid is a very pragmatic one. As rigid as it is, I'd even go as far as saying that mirrors the logic behind many "religious doctrines." The validity of any information really depends on the quality of it..not the quantity.

For example..

If an individual has studied a concept for many years and the opinion that they form regarding that concept is deemed to be errouneous,

And another studies that same concept for several minutes, however their opinion is found to be completely valid..

Then I would think that the individual with the "superior viewpoint" would be the one who has "valid" opinion.

Seriously my friend..just think about your rationale. If science were to have evolved using your logic for the past 3-4 centuries, then those with "superior study" would have kept us believing that the earth was flat, that it was the center of the universe, and that spontaneous generation resulted in the creation of insects and vermin.

Seriously Ush, as I stated to Lana..bring youself outside of the box just once my friend..

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
My problem is with bad theories, little in psychology beyond common sense is quantifiable the stats used in most psychology that goes beyond the commonsense level are often flawed. As usual when you don't like someones argument you dismiss it.


Amen Brotha!!!

Keep the Faith!!!

Holy shit, that's the biggest piece of ownage I've ever encountered.

Indeed Whobdamandog did well

Originally posted by FeceMan
Holy shit, that's the biggest piece of ownage I've ever encountered.

Well if you count the the link where Ush states that "Creationism is not a theory..it is a belief only"...you'll see that I owned him there as well. So I guess that would count as "d'ownage" or "double ownage".....

If any of you can tell me 3 different branches of psychology, I'll give a damn about your opinion

Heck, I'll give you one: Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic - it's the one Freud looked at, and made psychology "famous". It's exceptionally unscientific, and for the most part - wrong.

Now name me 2 other types, then we'll discuss psychology properly.

Cognitive Quackery

and the one I know most about Educational Quackery but I don't want to talk to you Dave after your elitist comment

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well if you count the the link where Ush states that "Creationism is not a theory..it is a belief only"...you'll see that I owned him there as well. So I guess that would count as "d'ownage" or "double ownage".....

I have and you did

this one is pretty funny to

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=358201&highlight=Civil+list

I love my hollow victories (sometimes) but don't tell Khama

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Cognitive Quackery

and the one I know most about Educational Quackery but I don't want to talk to you Dave after your elitist comment Fair enough, but I just wanted to seperate those that would prattle on about dreams being unscientific, and have an interesting conversation about conditioning or cognitive methods...

Originally posted by dave123
Fair enough, but I just wanted to seperate those that would prattle on about dreams being unscientific, and have an interesting conversation about conditioning or cognitive methods...

Fair enough but a lot of that I consider Quackery I'm afraid mate This is pretty common for hard scientists though

Fair enough - psychology by it's very nature can't be as scientific as something like physics, but that doesn't mean it's not a science...

Originally posted by dave123
Fair enough - psychology by it's very nature can't be as scientific as something like physics, but that doesn't mean it's not a science...

I'm not goin to point out the irony and contradiction in that statement as it would be as pretentious as your earlier statement

jk

I haven't been keeping up. Are we distinguishing between social psychology and neuropsychology? Psychology and psychiatry?

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I have and you did

this one is pretty funny to

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=358201&highlight=Civil+list

I love my hollow victories (sometimes) but don't tell Khama

I like to refer the victories as "gentle ribbings"...lol

Seriously..I think you and I need to start writing books on "how to troll"...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I haven't been keeping up. Are we distinguishing between social psychology and neuropsychology? Psychology and psychiatry? I think what's happening, is the ignorant are refering to Freud for their argument it's not scientific... but I'll be damned if I'm reading this entire thread

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I haven't been keeping up. Are we distinguishing between social psychology and neuropsychology? Psychology and psychiatry?

Not exactly X - Clinical Psychology - often OK in the respect it is correcting an imbalance - however what it actually does in the brain is a philosophical point. Most psychology (henceforth refereed to by me as Quackery due to the lack of statistical evidence and ludicrous ideas purported by most psychologists) has zero scientific evidence. Oh, and the few hours any Psychology students have in lectures etc at uni also support this.
Psychiatry is not being discussed as again the clinical stuff is less ducky than the rest for the aforementioned reasons.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I like to refer the victories as "gentle ribbings"...lol

Seriously..I think you and I need to start writing books on "how to troll"...
shhhhh

Originally posted by dave123
I think what's happening, is the ignorant are refering to Freud for their argument it's not scientific... but I'll be damned if I'm reading this entire thread

You do realize that you've just given an example of your own "ignorance" with the above statement...

To me "I'll be damed if I'm reading this entire thread" demonstrates that you falll into one or more of the following categories:

a) Unable to rebut any of the arguments presented in the previous pages.

b) Have difficulty reading anything that is more than 3-4 pages in length.

c) Are a troll...and really have nothing valid to contribute to the argument..

I'm guessing you probably fall into all three...

Oh and just as a little FYI..the debate has never been as to whether or not psychology is a science..its whether or not it should be deemed a "credible" one...

Keep the Faith...

Stay ignorant...

Not ignorant, just lazy

I recently got my A in psychology, I'll have you know - and I find it of little worth reading most of your opinions which are unlikely to be backed up by facts, when part of my course covers "Psychology and common sense", and also "Is Psychology a Science?"

And the simple fact you only picked out the one post of mine that makes me seem ignorant says a lot about you.

I just want to give a brief summary of the arguments that have been presented so far by many who have asserted psychology to be a credible science...

1. By definition, psychology is a science...therefore that means it is a "credible one"

2. Though much of the "treatments" for "psychological disorders" do not involve any type scientific methodology...the "research" methods do.

3. Generalizations have to be made in psychological and psychiatric fields because there are too many uncontrollable variables.

4. Psychology has 3 different branches.

5. Chemical imbalances do exist (note* similar rationale can be applied to Astrology and Graphology, seeing as how stars and handwriting "exist"

6. The scientific method only strictly applies to Earth/Natural sciences. Psychology and Sociology are able to use "other methods" to define themselves as being credible.

7. Those who are not of "superior study" regarding psychological fields, regardless of their own scientific backgrounds, do not have the right to question its "credibility."

I believe that sums all the pro arguments up..please feel free to add something to the list if I've missed anything...

Cognitive is scientific.
Behavourist fairly scientific.
Humanistic not quite so.
Psychoanalytic, for the most part, not really.

But psychology, as a whole, is generally unscientific, unless you look at individual components

Originally posted by dave123
Not ignorant, just lazy

I recently got my A in psychology, I'll have you know - and I find it of little worth reading most of your opinions which are unlikely to be backed up by facts, when part of my course covers "Psychology and common sense", and also "Is Psychology a Science?"


How do you know all the arguments are not backed up by facts..if you haven't even bothered to read the thread? You can't say that you know the basis behind an argument, if you haven't even read it. Stating that you are unwilling/lazy to read an opinion, but to then go forward criticizing it as ignorant..is just foolishness.



The only other post that you've presented was the one asking others to indentify the 3 branches of psychology. I don't see how asking that question in anyway proves Psychology's validity, rather..I just see it as a means for you to attack others credibility. Which as I stated before, is a foolish way to debate..and as you have seen in this post and my previous ones..is very easy to do.

With that being stated, why don't you now attempt to explain to us what makes psychology a "credible science"...seeing as how you consider yourself "studied" in the field.

Give us the its 3 branches, give us a summary of the research methods used to gather information in the field, explain to us how its treatment methods are "scientific".....and then maybe you'll disprove the argument at hand..that being that much of psychology is nothing more than "psuedoscience"...that can be easily lumped with other sciences of the same kind.

Originally posted by dave123
Psychology, as a whole, is generally unscientific, unless you look at individual components


The same can be said of many fields...the fact much of it is generally "unscientific"...would point to it being a "pseudoscience"...

Whobdamandog>"That's a dogmatic style of thought. An individual's opinion may be more informative than anothers..but that doesn't necessarily equate it to being "valid.""
What is? The fact that someone who has studied a subject for years knows more than you and I? No, that's not dogmatic, thas just the way it is. I suppose I have to apologoze for assuming that I did not need to waste your time going into explicit details as to the point of my post, but I guess I do.
If you have studied SCIENCE, as opposed to pseudoscience such as flat-Earth, you will among things have learned a scientific method, and the science in question.

"So what you are saying is that any "concept" stated to be a "science" can essentially make up whatever methods it wants to support it's "scientific" credability. I'm sorry, but I don't agree. If this is the case, then what's to stop anyone from claiming a personal belief system as being "scientific"?"

I am assuming that you're being stubborn out of ignorance. The answer to your question is of course "no". Go look up what science IS, then come back.

"You've just asserted in the previous post that only "NATURAL" sciences have the necessity of utilizing the scientific method, therefore you've just invalidated much of what classifies a concept as "scientific.""
Where did you get that idea from? I've merely stated that a science such as sociology will use another scientific method than natural sciences.

"I'm sorry Omega..but the only thing you've provided us with is one big contradiction."
Evidently you're the only one who cannot tell the difference between natural sciences and sciences such as sociology and psychology. My condolences.

In answer to the original question: Was Tom Cruise right about psychology? No. Tom Cruise is never right about anything. That is a fundamental law of the universe.

Originally posted by dave123
Cognitive is scientific.
Behavourist fairly scientific.
Humanistic not quite so.
Psychoanalytic, for the most part, not really.

But psychology, as a whole, is generally unscientific, unless you look at individual components


Dave you must know their are a lot more branches of Psychology than 3 you have quoted 4 here

Most a quackery and the principles involved unsound. They do not follow Epistemological process or Scientific method for the most part.

Originally posted by The Omega
What is? The fact that someone who has studied a subject for years knows more than you and I? No, that's not dogmatic, thas just the way it is. I suppose I have to apologoze for assuming that I did not need to waste your time going into explicit details as to the point of my post, but I guess I do.


That's not what I am stating. My basic point has been that study of a subject doesn't automatically equate one's opinions regarding that subject as being valid...

To believe that every individual of "superior study" is correct in their opinions is a "dogmatic" POV....just another little FYI..half of the people who claim to be of "superior study" in this thread have taken about 2 courses in psychology....I hardly think that makes them an authority...



The Earth being flat was considered common scientific knowledge in the 12th century..in fact it was considered "ridiculous" at those times to believe that the earth was round. Which again..validates my initial point of "superior study" not= "valid viewpoint"...



A science can essentially be classified as any concept or idea that utilizes the "scientific method"...any dink can call their belief a science if they use this broad definition, they then get a couple of other dinks to believe in what they preach, and publish what they preach in a journal.




Please enlighten me as to how sociology and psychology should be classified as "valid" sciences...