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... 🙂
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.
And the simple fact you only picked out the one post of mine that makes me seem ignorant says a lot about you.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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"...
😆 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.
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.
Evidently you're the only one who cannot tell the difference between natural sciences and sciences such as sociology and psychology. My condolences.
Please enlighten me as to how sociology and psychology should be classified as "valid" sciences...