Was Tom Cruise right about psychology?

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...

scientific method

1. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

2. Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

3. a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses

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."

(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).

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.

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.

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...

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.

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 😄

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 😖hifty:

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?

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.