Was Tom Cruise right about psychology?

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. [/B]

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?

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.

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.

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"

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.

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? [/B]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Kidrock> “Yet he will make more in a year then most of us in a lifetime.”

And? Does that make him right about psychology being a pseudoscience? Tom Cruise is a good actor, but his credentials on psychology are… ??

Whobdamandog>”Attempting to get a degree in a particular field of study doesn't automatically equate your opinion as being valid.”
If you’re on your way to a degree in chemistry I think your opinion on chemistry would be more valid than mine. Why? Because you have STUDIED the subject! Would you get a second opinion on your health from the desk-clerk in Wallmart??

Don’t mix up natural sciences with sciences. Natural sciences, like physics, can use the ”scientific method” because it deals with facts of NATURE. And either a zebra have stribes or it doesn’t. Psychology and sociology are sciences relying on other methods.

A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.
Scientific theories are characterised by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with scepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.

More here: http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

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 The Omega
If you’re on your way to a degree in chemistry I think your opinion on chemistry would be more valid than mine. Why? Because you have STUDIED the subject! Would you get a second opinion on your health from the desk-clerk in Wallmart??

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.

Don’t mix up natural sciences with sciences. Natural sciences, like physics, can use the ”scientific method” because it deals with facts of NATURE. And either a zebra have stribes or it doesn’t. Psychology and sociology are sciences relying on other methods.

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"?

A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.

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." Therefore with that assertion being made, you now have little basis to determine which ideas are scientific and which ones are not, other than the brief(sic) guidelines that you've given below, which I'm about to get to.

Scientific theories are characterised by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with scepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.

So now you're stating that only those theories that use "empirical" evidence, are approached with "skepticism", and do not embody any sort of "metaphysical thought" or "spirituality" should be classified a scientific?

Question..have you ever heard of hypnosis? Or how about energybreathing, rebirthing, reparenting, or repressed memory therapy? These are all different types of "metaphysical" psychotherapies used by psychologists.

I'm getting a bit confused now as to how a concept is classified as a science...I've heard that "metaphysical techniques" are not used in real sciences, then I learn that psychology uses "metaphysical techniques"...😕

Then I'm told that the "scientific method" does not appy to all sciences, however, that statement is then followed up with another statement saying that it is necessary to have "empirical evidence" to validate a concept as a science. 😕

Note* Empirical evidence is directly derived from utilizing the scientific method..

I'm sorry Omega..but the only thing you've provided us with is one big contradiction..sad thing is, that I'm a computer scientist, not a biologist or natural one..however even with the brief studies I've had in the natural science field my opinions, although not as informative as your own..are definately a bit more "valid"...

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.

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...