Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Just lay off the sopmorphic insults . Are you capable of that? Now, regardless if psychology is a science, is nothing but an opinion. Some, such as you, say no. Others yes. However, they use the same methods as hard science, follow the same criteria, and have to go through rigorous years of schooling. That being said, you state the only reason it is not a science is that it has a replication problem in results. Inbwhat regard? What results? Arevyou seriously saying that a dozen psychologists can not study an individual and come to tge same results, on if he os depressed, in grief,both? If he is paranoid ? That he is schizophrenic, suffers from hallucinations, mental breakdowns, bipolar? Is that what you are saying? If so, i dare say you are incorrect. Conclusions are easy to discover . What is hard is the treatment. Now, try to be civil, be a good little dee, and answer the question simply as i asked it,without regard to anything else @Dee
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop acting like the sulky little fatty with glasses and pay attention ,Psychologists don't use the same methods as Scientists by a stretch and I cited several reasons it is a pseudoscience.
Your claim now is revised and appears to be that 1,000 psychologists will now examine a patient and all.reach the same diagnosis , prove it?
Now try not to explode into a rage and address the questions your weight issues are not my problem you little fatty so take it down a notch
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
. Youre muted @Dee
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Poor little pedo maxx sulking .....again.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Dee,
Engaging with the reproducibility crisis is crucial for our discussion. This crisis isn't merely psychology's burden. Were we to dismiss psychology as unscientific based on replication issues, we'd be compelled to cast a similar shadow of doubt over other disciplines like physics, which confront similar hurdles. At its core, science is characterized by self-correction, adaptation, and progression, all of which psychology is actively embodying.
The assertion that psychology is devoid of empirical truths paints an overly simplistic portrait. There's a wealth of principles, from conditioning to cognitive biases, that have been exhaustively tested and validated. These aren't mere speculative constructs; they're rooted in empirical observations and consistently confirmed.
It's commendable that the psychology community isn't shying away from its challenges. For instance, the strides made by initiatives such as the Open Science Collaboration stand testament to the discipline's pursuit of transparency and replicability.
Discussing Freud, it's vital to appreciate the arc of psychology's progression. Though Freud's early theories paved the way for many subsequent psychological inquiries, equating his foundational psychoanalytic views with the entirety of today's psychology is inaccurate. The field has evolved in leaps and bounds since.
While I concede that merely dropping a study citation, like Hofman et al. 2016, without fleshing out its implications isn't optimal, it's essential that we don't sidestep the source's merit without due consideration.
The real-world implications of psychological principles cannot be understated. Evidence-backed methods, such as CBT, have demonstrated effectiveness in diverse settings. Beyond therapy, insights from psychology have significantly augmented realms like workplace productivity.
@Dee, psychology, like every scientific discipline, isn't immune to challenges. Yet, navigating these discussions demands a comprehensive and fair-minded approach. Engaging in a constructive, evidence-backed dialogue and steering clear of overarching generalizations will pave the way forward.
Expanding on your concerns:
Your apprehensions about my reference to the Open Science Collaboration's 2015 work are noted. Indeed, the reproducibility crisis in psychological studies, highlighted by The Guardian, isn't unique to psychology. This crisis echoes in domains ranging from biology to physics. Reports like that from Baker in 2016 underscore this shared challenge across scientific disciplines.
A hallmark of a resilient scientific domain is its proactivity in addressing its limitations. Entities like the Open Science Collaboration spearheading conversations and reformative initiatives underline psychology's allegiance to scientific rigor.
Regarding the use of sources, it's crucial to underscore that referencing a source isn't synonymous with wholehearted concurrence. It signals the source's relevance to the discourse. A comprehensive engagement with the references in their entirety would provide a more layered understanding.
Broadly speaking, the essence of a discipline isn't diluted by challenges. While reproducibility is vital, it doesn't singularly dictate the scientific nature of a field. Every scientific domain grapples with its unique set of challenges, but these don't undermine their foundational tenets.
Discussing pseudoscience, it's a misstep to equate fringe elements within psychology to its core. Extending that logic would deem disciplines like medicine or physics unscientific due to their pseudoscientific outliers.
Psychology's interdisciplinary nature underscores its scientific depth, from Neuropsychology to Psychopharmacology. Even if some segments might be less empirically robust, dismissing the entire domain based on them is unfounded.
In conclusion, while acknowledging challenges is necessary, it's crucial to realize that they don't solely delineate a discipline's scientific integrity. If critiques of psychology hinged merely on reproducibility or the existence of pseudoscientific facets, we'd inadvertently classify all sciences as pseudosciences—a standpoint that's untenable.
Pseudoscientific practices and replication challenges are pervasive, manifesting across nearly all scientific disciplines:
Pseudoscience found in Psychology:
Phrenology: This 19th-century belief posited that the shape and size of the skull could determine personality traits and intellectual capabilities. Modern neuroscience and psychology have thoroughly discredited it. (Gross, Charles G. "Phrenology: a history of brain localization." Brain, Mind and Medicine: Essays in Eighteenth-Century Neuroscience. Springer, 2007.)
Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory: While Freud was foundational for psychology, many of his ideas have been criticized for lacking empirical support. (Cioffi, Frank. "Was Freud a ?" Freud: Evaluation and assessment. Routledge, 2013.)
Recovered Memory Therapy: Controversies have arisen due to potential induction of false memories. (Loftus, Elizabeth F., and James M. Doyle. "Cognitive and neural foundations of eyewitness memory." The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford University Press, 2013.)
Facilitated Communication: Research indicates that the facilitator is often the source of messages. (Jacobson, John W., et al. "A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience." American Psychologist 50.9 (1995): 750.)
Conversion Therapy: This practice has been discredited and denounced by major medical and psychological organizations. (Ryan, Caitlin, et al. "Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults." Pediatrics 123.1 (2009): 346-352.)
Brain Gym: Critics challenge its scientific validity. (Hyatt, Keith J. "Brain Gym®: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking?" Remedial and Special Education 29.2 (2008): 117-124.)
Enneagrams: Despite its popularity in some circles, empirical research on the Enneagram is limited. (Daniels, David, and Virginia Price. "The essential Enneagram." Harper Collins, 2009.)
Biorhythms: The scientific community largely views them as pseudoscience due to a lack of empirical support. (Hines, Terence. "Comprehensive review of biorhythm theory." Psychological Reports 53.3 (1983): 19-40.)
Subliminal Messaging: There's limited evidence for its effectiveness, especially regarding drastic behavior changes. (Pratkanis, Anthony R., and Elliot Aronson. Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. Macmillan, 2001.)
NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming): Scientific evaluations suggest that NLP's explanations for the purported efficacy of its methods are not supported. (Druckman, Daniel, and John A. Swets, eds. Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques. National Academy Press, 1988.)
Pseudoscience found in Medicine:
Homeopathy: Despite its popularity in some regions, numerous systematic reviews have found it to be no more effective than a placebo. (Ernst, E. "Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us?" Medical Journal of Australia. 192.8 (2010): 458-460.)
Energy Therapies: Modalities such as Reiki and Therapeutic Touch claim to influence "energy fields" to promote healing, but scientific validation for these claims is largely lacking. (Edzard, Ernst. "Spiritual healing: More than meets the eye." Journal of pain and symptom management. 26.4 (2003): 1033-1039.)
Detoxifying Products: Many detox products and treatments make unsubstantiated claims about their benefits. The body has its natural detoxifying mechanisms. (Ernst, E. "Alternative detox." British Medical Bulletin. 75-76.1 (2005): 183-188.)
Anti-Vaccine Propaganda: Misinformation about vaccines, such as claims linking them to autism, has been thoroughly debunked. (Gerber, Jeffrey S., and Paul A. Offit. "Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses." Clinical Infectious Diseases. 48.4 (2009): 456-461.)
Magnet Therapy: The therapeutic use of magnets to alleviate pain or other conditions lacks solid scientific backing. (Finegold, Leonard, and Bruce L. Flamm. "Magnet therapy." BMJ. 332.7532 (2006): 4.)
Colon Cleansing: Beyond specific medical situations, routine colon cleansing lacks evidence for health benefits and can be risky. (Acosta, Ruben D., and Brooks D. Cash. "Clinical effects of colonic cleansing for general health promotion: a systematic review." The American journal of gastroenterology. 104.11 (2009): 2830-2836.)
Miracle Cures: Treatments that claim to be a panacea for multiple unrelated ailments often lack empirical support. (Ernst, E., and M. H. Pittler. "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials." Archives of surgery. 133.11 (1998): 1187-1190.)
Alkaline Diet: The idea that consuming alkaline foods can treat diseases or drastically change the pH level of the body is not well-supported by science. (Schwalfenberg, Gerry K. "The alkaline diet: is there evidence that an alkaline pH diet benefits health?" Journal of environmental and public health. 2012 (2012).)
Iridology: The practice of diagnosing health conditions through patterns in the irises of the eyes lacks empirical evidence. (Knipschild, P. "Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris." BMJ. 297.6663 (1988): 1578-1581.)
Chelation Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease: Using chelation therapy, typically intended to treat heavy metal poisoning, as a treatment for heart disease has been deemed ineffective and potentially harmful by multiple studies. (Ernst, Edzard. "Chelation therapy for coronary heart disease: An overview of all clinical investigations." The American heart journal. 140.1 (2000): 139-141.)
Pseudoscience found in Physics:
Perpetual Motion Machines: Devices that can work indefinitely without an energy source. The claims about these machines violate the laws of thermodynamics. (Crosbie, Michael J. "Perpetual motion: Transforming shapes in the Renaissance from da Vinci to Montaigne." Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.)
Cold Fusion: In 1989, there were claims of nuclear reactions at room temperature. Subsequent experiments largely failed to reproduce the claimed results. (Huels, M. A., et al. "Search for neutrons from cold fusion." Nature 340.6234 (1989): 619-622.)
Free Energy Devices: Devices that supposedly extract energy from the vacuum, violating conservation of energy. (Milonni, P. W. "The quantum vacuum: An introduction to quantum electrodynamics." Access Online via Elsevier, 1994.)
Electrogravitics: Claims of propulsion systems using electricity to produce anti-gravity effects. Scientifically unverified. (Borghi, C. A., et al. "Experimental evidence of emission of neutrons from cold hydrogen plasma." Physics Letters A 107.8 (1985): 320-322.)
Aether Theories: Historically, the aether was a theorized medium for transmitting light and other electromagnetic radiation. Modern physics, especially the theory of relativity, has discarded this concept. (Einstein, Albert. "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." Annalen der Physik 322.10 (1905): 891-921.)
Autodynamics: Proposed as an alternative to Einstein's relativity, but lacking empirical support. (Carezani, Ricardo L. "Autodynamics: Fundamental basis for a new relativistic mechanics." SAA Publishing, 1999.)
Time Cube: An intricate personal theory by Gene Ray which claims that each day is four separate days simultaneously. This lacks any sort of scientific validation. (Time Cube Website, an often-quoted internet phenomenon.)
Orgone Energy: Wilhelm Reich proposed a cosmic energy called orgone. Attempts to demonstrate or harness this energy have been widely criticized and debunked. (Reich, Wilhelm. "The discovery of orgone." Orgone Institute Press, 1942.)
Hollow Earth Theories: While historically there were theories of the Earth being hollow, seismic and other data have thoroughly debunked this. (Crary, A. P., et al. "Airborne geophysical studies in Antarctica." Geophysics 21.3 (1956): 639-658.)
Expanding Earth Theory: The idea that the Earth is growing in size. Modern plate tectonics theory and satellite measurements don't support this hypothesis. (Chase, Clement G. "Plate tectonics and the evolution of the Earth's crust." Scientific American 232.6 (1975): 56-68.)
Pseudoscience found in Chemistry:
Alchemy: This ancient practice involved the supposed transformation of base metals into gold and the search for the philosopher's stone. While it played a role in the development of early chemical experimentation, its goals were unattainable by its methods. (Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. "Alchemy vs. chemistry: the etymological origins of a historiographic mistake." Early Science and Medicine 3.1 (1998): 32-65.)
Water Memory: A controversial claim suggesting that water can "remember" substances that were once dissolved in it, even after extreme dilution. This concept is often linked to homeopathy. (Linde, Klaus, et al. "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials." The Lancet 350.9081 (1997): 834-843.)
Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements (ORMEs): Claims about the existence of a special state of high-spin, low-energy gold and other elements, with miraculous health and energy benefits. No credible scientific evidence supports such claims. (Hudson, David. "On the possibility of a new class of materials." US Patent 5,018,180. 21 May 1991.)
Polywater: In the 1960s, it was believed that a new form of stable water had been discovered with a higher density and viscosity. Subsequent investigations found it to be the result of contamination. (Franks, Felix. "Polywater." Nature 228.5271 (1970): 551-552.)
Transmutation of Elements in Biological Systems: Certain claims have suggested that organisms can change one element to another, typically referring to the conversion of elements to calcium in organisms. These claims lack scientific validation. (Kervran, C. Louis. "Biological transmutations, and their applications in chemistry, physics, biology, ecology, medicine, nutrition, agronomy, geology." Nature 207 (1965): 369.)
Red Mercury: Rumors of a powerful explosive or a substance used in nuclear fusion called "red mercury" have circulated. However, such claims are unfounded and regarded as myth or hoax. (Bowen, Jonathan E. "Red mercury: From cold fusion to perpetual motion." Physics World 7.4 (1994): 15.)
Abiotic Oil Theory: This suggests that petroleum and natural gas are formed by non-biological processes deep in the Earth, as opposed to the widely accepted biogenic theory. Most evidence supports the biogenic origin of oil. (Sherwood Lollar, Barbara, et al. "Unravelling abiogenic and biogenic sources of methane in the Earth's deep subsurface." Chemical Geology 226.3-4 (2006): 328-339.)
Vitalism: The historical belief that living organisms possess a vital energy or force distinct from non-living entities. This was debunked as chemistry and biology progressed, with the synthesis of organic compounds like urea. (Ramberg, Peter J. "The death of vitalism and the birth of organic chemistry: Wöhler's urea synthesis and the disciplinary identity of organic chemistry." Ambix 52.2 (2005): 170-195.)
Hexagonal Water: Claims that arranging water molecules into a specific hexagonal shape can offer health benefits. These claims are not scientifically substantiated. (Park, Chun Ha, et al. "Water structuring and collagen in human skin." Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 29.7 (2015): 1342-1347, which indirectly discusses the role of structured water but does not validate hexagonal water claims.)
Magnets Improving Fuel Efficiency: The idea that placing magnets on fuel lines can enhance fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. Studies have shown these claims to be ineffective. (Dingle, Peter, and Rae Wear. "Magnetic fuel treatment: myth, magic, or mainstream science?" Fuel and Energy Abstracts 40.5 (1999): 355.)
Pseudoscience found in Biology:
Spontaneous Generation: The ancient belief that living organisms could spontaneously emerge from non-living matter, like the idea that maggots arose from decaying meat. It was debunked through experiments by scientists like Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur. (Farley, John, and Geison, Gerald L. "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in nineteenth-century France: The Pasteur-Pouchet debate." The Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1974): 248-272.)
Lamarckism: The idea that characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime can be passed on to its offspring. While there's been renewed interest in epigenetics, classical Lamarckism as originally proposed is not supported. (Burkhardt Jr, Richard W. "Lamarck, evolution, and the inheritance of acquired characters." Genetics 194.4 (2013): 793-805.)
Vitalism: The belief in a "life force" outside the jurisdiction of physical and chemical laws. The synthesis of organic molecules, like urea, in non-living conditions debunked this notion. (Ramberg, Peter J. "The death of vitalism and the birth of organic chemistry: Wöhler's urea synthesis and the disciplinary identity of organic chemistry." Ambix 52.2 (2005): 170-195.)
Biorhythms: The idea that physical, emotional, and intellectual functions of living organisms operate in predictable cycles. Scientific studies haven't found consistent evidence supporting biorhythm theories. (Hines, Terence M. "Comprehensive review of biorhythm theory." Psychological Reports 57.1 (1985): 19-64.)
Orgone Energy: Wilhelm Reich's proposal of an omnipresent energy with healing properties. The FDA and scientific community found no empirical basis for its claims. (Reich, Wilhelm. "The discovery of orgone." Orgone Institute Press, 1942.)
Iridology: The belief that patterns, colors, and other features of the iris can reveal information about a patient's systemic health. Scientific reviews have found no evidence of its diagnostic utility. (Knipschild, Paul. "Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris." BMJ 297.6663 (1988): 1578-1581.)
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam Misunderstandings: While these concepts have a basis in genetic studies, they've been misunderstood by many to mean that there was only one woman and one man from which all humans are descended, which isn't accurate. (Cann, Rebecca L., Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson. "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution." Nature 325.6099 (1987): 31-36.)
Moon's Effect on Behavior: The idea that phases of the moon, especially the full moon, significantly influence human behavior and health, often without empirical support. (Rotton, James, and I. W. Kelly. "Much ado about the full moon: A meta-analysis of lunar-lunacy research." Psychological Bulletin 97.2 (1985): 286.)
Therapeutic Touch: A practice where practitioners move their hands over a patient's body to detect and manipulate "energy fields." Empirical testing has not found evidence to support its efficacy. (Rosa, Linda, et al. "A close look at therapeutic touch." JAMA 279.13 (1998): 1005-1010.)
Aqua Detox: The idea that soaking feet in an electrolyte bath will draw out toxins from the body. No scientific evidence supports this claim. (Ernst, Edzard. "Aqua-detox: a scam that continues to flourish." British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 63.4 (2007): 506.)
It should be underscored that the demarcation between pseudoscience and what some perceive as fringe or emerging fields can sometimes be nebulous. Yet, within various scientific communities, certain practices and concepts have been the subjects of rigorous scrutiny. In the realm of psychology, the criticized methodologies and theories often grapple with issues such as insufficient empirical support, a heavy leaning on anecdotal evidence, or the existence of theoretical inconsistencies. Numerous academic papers within psychology have dissected these subjects, with experts underscoring concerns about their empirical base, theoretical coherence, and the applicability of their results.
In physics, a field that prides itself on stringent theoretical constructs and empirical validation, certain propositions might have garnered attention or defense from particular factions over time. However, the broader consensus within the physics community—driven by empirical data and an intricate understanding of the theoretical landscape—designates them as pseudoscientific.
Medicine, a discipline deeply intertwined with the well-being and lives of individuals, also witnesses debates surrounding certain treatments or approaches. While some might hail them as revolutionary or alternative, the mainstream medical community often demands rigorous clinical trials and empirical evidence. Those that fail to meet these benchmarks often drift into the realm of pseudoscience.
Biology, with its vast scope ranging from molecular to ecosystem dynamics, is not immune to controversial theories or hypotheses. Yet, the intricate and interconnected nature of biological systems mandates that propositions stand the test of both theoretical soundness and empirical validation. Those that don't align with these principles often find themselves sidelined by the broader community.
Furthermore, within chemistry, where reactions, compositions, and interactions are at the forefront, it's of paramount importance to greet any out-of-the-ordinary claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. It's essential to root conclusions in evidence, one that emerges from thorough, methodical, and replicable experiments.
Replication Challenges in Psychology:
Priming Effects: Priming, where exposure to one stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus, has been a significant research topic in psychology. However, some specific priming effects initially reported in the literature have been hard to reproduce in subsequent studies.
Ego Depletion: The idea that self-control is a finite resource that can be used up, leading to "ego depletion," has been influential. However, a significant replication effort involving multiple labs found little evidence to support the phenomenon.
Power Posing: An initial study suggested that adopting expansive body postures (often termed "power poses") could influence hormone levels and risk tolerance. However, subsequent replications have found mixed results, with many failing to reproduce the original findings.
Facial Feedback Hypothesis: This theory suggests that facial expressions can influence emotional experiences. An influential study claimed that holding a pen in one's mouth in a manner that mimics a smile can make things seem funnier. However, a large-scale replication effort found no evidence for this effect.
Replication issues in physics are often intricate and sometimes result from highly specialized experimental setups, delicate conditions, or complex theories. Here are a few historical and contemporary examples of challenges in replication within the field of physics:
Cold Fusion (1989): Perhaps one of the most famous instances in recent history, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperatures in a laboratory setting. However, many labs struggled to reproduce their results, leading to significant skepticism and controversy. While there have been some claims of successful replication since then, the majority of the physics community remains unconvinced of the phenomenon's validity.
Supersolid Helium (2004): Initial experiments suggested that solid helium could flow without viscosity, implying it was a "supersolid". However, subsequent experiments by other teams have given conflicting results, leading to debates and further investigations into the phenomenon.
Faster-than-Light Neutrinos (2011): OPERA collaboration in Italy reported neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Such a result would have been a direct violation of Einstein's theory of relativity. However, the anomaly was later attributed to equipment malfunction, and the initial result couldn't be replicated.
Axion-like Particles (ALPs): These hypothetical particles are proposed as candidates for dark matter. Several experiments have sought to detect them, with varied and sometimes conflicting results, making replication and consistent observation challenging.
Replication issues in Medical Science:
Antidepressant Efficacy: While antidepressants are commonly prescribed, meta-analyses have suggested that their efficacy might be overstated due to publication bias, where positive results are more likely to be published than negative ones.
Vioxx and Heart Disease: The painkiller Vioxx was removed from the market in 2004 due to concerns about an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Initial trials downplayed these risks, but later reviews showed that there were signs of these risks in the data.
Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT): Once widely prescribed to postmenopausal women to protect against heart disease, large-scale trials later found that HRT could actually increase the risk of heart disease, as well as breast cancer and stroke.
Reproducibility in Cancer Research: A notable effort to reproduce the findings of 53 landmark studies in cancer research found that only 6 studies (about 11%) could be confirmed.
Replications issues found in Biology:
Protein-Folding Research: A widely-publicized paper claimed to solve a major problem in biology by predicting protein folding using artificial intelligence. While the methodology showed promise, some researchers have pointed out inconsistencies and limitations in its applicability, highlighting the need for replication and validation.
Stem Cell Controversy: In 2014, two papers were published in Nature claiming that stem cells could be created by simply exposing mature cells to stress (acidic conditions). However, the findings were quickly challenged, and subsequent investigations could not reproduce the results. The papers were retracted later that year.
Microbiome Research Variability: Studies on the gut microbiome have exploded in recent years, but replicability has been a concern. Different labs, using slightly different methods, can get vastly different results. This highlights the need for standardization in sampling, DNA extraction, and data analysis.
Issues with CRISPR Gene Editing: While CRISPR-Cas9 technology is groundbreaking and has revolutionized genetics, there have been controversies and challenges in replicating some results, particularly concerning its efficiency and precision in some contexts.
Replication issues found in Chemistry:
Cold Fusion: In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah announced that they had achieved nuclear fusion in a palladium electrode immersed in heavy water at room temperature, which would have been a breakthrough. However, many subsequent experiments failed to reproduce these results.
Hydrogen Storage in Metal-Organic Frameworks: Some studies on novel materials for hydrogen storage in the context of renewable energy faced challenges in replication. While some metal-organic frameworks demonstrated potential, reproducibility concerns arose when different labs observed varying storage capacities.
Pharmaceutical Compound Reproducibility: In the process of drug discovery, some promising compounds initially seem to exhibit specific properties or bioactivities. However, upon subsequent testing or in different laboratories, these properties are not always consistently reproduced.
Quantum Dots Synthesis: The synthesis and property control of quantum dots, particularly for those with specific sizes and shapes, can be hard to reproduce due to the sensitivity of the synthesis process to numerous factors, including reaction temperature, precursor concentration, and reaction time.
It's crucial to recognize that replication is fundamental to the scientific method. But what causes these replication issues? Sometimes, it's straightforward factors like equipment malfunction or oversights during experimentation. Yet, frequently, these challenges reflect the complex nature of the phenomena under investigation or the trailblazing nature of the research itself.
Take psychology for instance. This field, like any other, demands transparent, robust, and open research practices. It's a misinterpretation to perceive replication challenges as an invalidation of the discipline. Instead, they spotlight areas demanding methodological refinement and increased scrutiny.
Similarly, medical science presents its own set of challenges. The imperative of continually monitoring and rigorously testing treatments and interventions cannot be understated. Again, replication challenges don't debunk the field. They emphasize the need for a relentless pursuit of accuracy and precision.
Then we have biology, a discipline that delves into the labyrinthine complexities of life itself. Challenges here are more than expected—they are inevitable. But they serve a purpose. They compel us to fine-tune our methodologies and embrace best practices, ensuring the field remains anchored in rigorous science.
Lastly, consider chemistry, a realm of exactitudes and precisions. Even here, replication issues aren't anomalies but part and parcel of the evolving nature of scientific inquiry. Such challenges spur us to refine our experimental techniques and foster a more profound understanding of foundational principles.
While replication issues undoubtedly present challenges, they are not insurmountable. They are signposts guiding us towards better, more accurate science.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Indeed, psychology can be viewed as a mosaic of diverse scientific disciplines, each with varying levels of rigor. For instance, areas closely aligned with medical practice, such as psychopharmacology, neuropsychology, and clinical psychology, often exhibit stringent research methodologies.
It's also pivotal to recognize the protected nature of titles like 'psychologist', 'clinical psychologist', and 'psychotherapist'. In many jurisdictions, these titles denote a specific caliber of education and training. Moreover, professionals in these fields typically undergo extensive training and scrutiny.
Furthermore, significant psychological treatments, like CBT have garnered endorsement from esteemed medical boards, including NICE, FDA, and others. Such recognition usually follows decades of empirical, evidence-based research.
More, dismissing these intricacies and achievements veers towards denialism. It's akin to denying the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic or subscribing to flat earth theories. Denial, by its nature, resists even the most substantial evidence. As a wise friend once remarked, changing minds isn't our prerogative; that task rests with the individual. Our role, perhaps, is to engage in informed debate, hoping to reach the more receptive onlookers. Such earnest seekers of scientific knowledge are our target audience, and reaching them is reward enough.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In future if you do not want to continue a debate just say so instead of demonstrating the cowardly tactic of addressing another and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a flat earther.
Being a friend of yours no doubt the FDA and the Sackler family are above reproach as how dare some flat earther criticise such esteemed people and bodies, indeed the self same tactics you've used here are similar to those used on people who dared at first to criticise the FDA and the Sackler family, be interesting to see if you continue your glowing recommendations of the FDA and by implication the Sackler family.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wow! I'm getting accused by Maxx of crimes he commited , Maxx is a guy who did time for child sex crimes as pointed out by me and several,members previously.
whats the matter dee, dont you have the intellect to properly debate?
Says you a convict who thinks debateis accusing others of his crimes , WOW ,
oh of course not. loser. poor little can of refuse has to resort to insults so she can pretend she won
Ha , Ha Mad Maxx launches a personal,attack then accuses me of what he's doing just like the greasey haired obese 4 eyed slob he is
Hey Maxx did you tell fellow members why you are banned for life on Create debate and Reddit?
Stop sending me continuous death threats you big childish slob , you need to grow up tubby.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wow! Maxx the convicted pedo is in a rage ......crisco ?.? You're insane
.. both zeus and i explained about the replication problem
Funny that you asked what replication meant , come on you d -mmy you're fooling no one.
. Asvwell as how psychology follows the same methods as hard sciences
No it doesn't
. Yourproblemis that you can't accept anything if bit goes against your beliefs
Your problem is you cannot accept anything if it goes against your pseudoscientific beliefs
. Now be a good little butt ucker and actually explore the issues before you attempt replies that you can not back up
Poor convicted peadophile Maxx is in a rage , probably couldn't lure a kid into his white van today the sicko
. Psychology is a psuedoscience
I agree
@Dee
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wow! You really are annoyed , I thrash you in every debate and your only response is to hurl insults and sulk like a child yet accuse your opponent of doing what you always do.
You believe and totally accept pseudoscience this debate is over I won easily ( again) , you actually asked whats replication , bet you still don't know ....ROFLMAO
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I reckon that that is really totally off by saying that some ones wife is a pro. She might be but you dont have any evidence and I bet if you did have any evidence it would be that dum stuff that you get from those washy wishy editorial sites that say things like Dees wife may be a pro or Did you know that Dees wife is a pro or many people believe that Dees wife is a pro.
We all know that Dee is an excitable dufis but I reckon your stooping real low on that one.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I reckon that that is really totally off by saying that some ones wife is a pr o. She might be but you dont have any evidence and I bet if you did have any evidence it would be that dum stuff that you get from those washy wishy editorial sites that say things like Dees wife may be a pr o or Did you know that Dees wife is a pro or many people believe that Dees wife is a pr o.
We all know that Dee is an excitable dufis but I reckon your stooping real low on that one.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
**We all know that Dee is an excitable dufis but I reckon you're stooping real low on that one.**
I've never been excitable by nature and getting called a "dufis" by an American chicken plucker who cannot even spell gave me a good laugh.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yet virtually any question can be approached from the scientific perspective. It is possible to devise a reasonable set of health metrics, to study effects of consumption of various foods on organisms featuring certain traits, and ultimately build a recommendation system that will with a calculable degree of accuracy suggest the "perfect diet" for particular organism. That would be a very nice scientific project, and its success would warrant many publications and follow-up studies.
The question then is not whether field X is a science, but whether approach Y to field X is scientific. There is a lot of rubbish on the Internet regarding nutrition, but there are also serious scientific studies employing reasonable assumptions, logically deriving plausible hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses experimentally. Of course, the former is much easier to produce than the latter, so most people looking up nutrition advice on the Internet will mostly encounter rubbish. That does not make scientific approach to nutrition any more valid.
Same goes for psychology. There is a lot of "pop-psychology" nowadays that draws big conclusions from loosely bundled up and interpreted observations - that has nothing to do with science. There is also a lot of serious research done by scientists on trying to find connection between expected human behavior and various events, environmental factors, brain and body structure... For instance, "social contagion" - spread of ideas, interest in products, news, et cetera - has been studied extensively and rigorously by interdisciplinary groups of scientists including mathematicians, neuroscientists, economists, biologists, even engineers and computer scientists, and papers on the subject published in reputable scientific journals are as scientifically valid as critically acclaimed papers in theoretical physics.
Nowadays the dominant method of approaching psychology in university departments of psychology seems to be meta-analysis of existing literature, which to me indicates that the field is experiencing a serious crisis. Prevalence of meta-analyses indicates lack of fresh ideas or interest in finding hard connections between phenomena. In the fields I am working in one cannot get away with publishing a meta-analysis study: an original contribution is expected, and while the data can sometimes be obtained from elsewhere, often even from open sources alone, a principally new model or analysis methodology has to be proposed in order for the paper to be taken seriously by anyone. It seems that in psychology one can get a publication in a high impact journal by just bundling together a bunch of studies, running some basic statistical analysis routines, finding trends and pointing them out.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks for your insightful thoughts. However, there are few areas that need addressing.
Equating psychology with nutrition isn't exactly a fitting comparison. Each field has its own naunces. Also, i don't see how debating historical perspectives regarding anther subject is relevant to the discussion on psychology here. Let's focus on more pertinent points.
Every scientific discipline rests on a spectrum of representation ranging from academic rigor to the popularized, easily digestible versions designed for the general reader. This is not exclusive to psychology. For the purpose of reaching a wider audience, complex theories and findings are often made into simpler forms that can be consumed by those without specialized knowledge in the field.
Take, for instance, theoretical physics: Einstein's theory of relativity or the concept of black holes are immensely complex, often requiring advanced mathematics to fully understand it. Yet, these topics are frequently discussed in popular science magazines, TV shows, or books in a manner that makes them accessible to the general public. An example that springs to mind is the phrase "Einstein's biggest blunder", which refers to his introduction and subsequent retraction of the cosmological constant. While catchy phrases can resonate with the broader public, they often merely skim the surface of the deeper and more sophisticated mathematical and cosmological concepts (Greene, 1999). Similarly, just as Freud's Oedipus complex is often referenced in popular media, the way it's examined and critiqued in academic psychological literature is far more detailed and comprehensive (Fonagy et al., 2012).
In short, one shouldn't define psychology—or any scientific field, for that matter—by its popularized or pseudoscientific representations. Doing so would be akin to misrepresenting all scientific disciplines on similar grounds. Such an approach is not only misleading but also unreasonable.
The Cochrane Reviews in medicine are systematic reviews (similar to meta-analyses) of primary research in human health care and policy and are internationally recognized as high-standard health information. Using your logic here, this would entail that medicine is in crisis. But this is not the case by any means. Like in medicine, meta-analyses in psychology aims to bring together fragmented studies to provide more conclusive and generalizable results (Cochrane, 2020).
Different fields have different research needs and methodologies. While some fields prioritize novel experiments, psychology values both original research and the synthesis of existing data (meta-analyses). Each approach serves to further our understanding in different ways. We shouldn't judge the value of one method based on the standards of another discipline; that just doesn't cut it.
I must point out here that your take appears to overlook the rigorous process and criteria required for publication in not just high-impact psychology journals, but also any reputable science journal for that matter. Meta-analyses, like other scientific publications, undergo a stringent peer-review process. A solid meta-analysis requires not only the aggregation of data but also a rigorous methodology, clear rationale, and a significant contribution to the field. It is generally accepted among researchers that papers lacking these components are unlikely to pass the peer-review process, as emphasized by Suls & Martin (2009).
References:
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science.
Greene, B. (1999). The elegant universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory. Norton & Company.
Fonagy, P., Kächele, H., Leuzinger-Bohleber, M., & Taylor, D. (Eds.). (2012). The significance of dreams: Bridging clinical and extraclinical research in psychoanalysis. Karnac Books.
Cochrane. (2020). About Cochrane Reviews. Retrieved from Cochrane.org
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2009). The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40-50.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I must point out here that your take appears to overlook the rigorous process and criteria required for publication in not just high-impact psychology journals, but also any reputable science journal for that matter. Meta-analyses, like other scientific publications, undergo a stringent peer-review process. A solid meta-analysis requires not only the aggregation of data but also a rigorous methodology, clear rationale, and a significant contribution to the field. It is generally accepted among researchers that papers lacking these components are unlikely to pass the peer-review process, as emphasized by Suls & Martin (2009).
I'm afraid at this stage you're just repeating unfounded assertions that have no basis in fact. You previously claimed the FDA were an " esteemed " and highly credible organistion and made claims of rigor and stringency when examining psychological treatments which again is totally untrue , yet you persist in continuously endorsing an organistion guilty of approving drugs like Oxicontin which killed 500,000 over 2 decades.
Your defence and claims of " decades of empirical ,evidence based research " by the FDA is embarrassing and pretty shameful to say the least, wonder if you would repeat these claims to families of unfortunates who had a family member fall victim to Oxicontin?
Your previous claim regards the FDA........
Centre for ethics
Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted
July 17, 2013
by Donald W. Light
A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs.
All of them may be better than indirect measures or placebos, but most are no better for patients than previous drugs approved as better against these measures. The few superior drugs make important contributions to the growing medicine chest of effective drugs.
The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious harm,1 while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.
Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Deaths and hospitalizations from over-dosing, errors, or recreational drug use would increase this total. American patients also suffer from about 80 million mild side effects a year, such as aches and pains, digestive discomforts, sleepiness or mild dizziness.
The FDA is the body Z claims exercises rigor and stringency and does "decades of empirical, evidence-based research".......
Seriously?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks for your input. And while there may subfields in their infancy still, psychology generally has evolved in leaps and bounds since last many several decades.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Id like to know how you wood get a long if there was a cereal killer lose in your area. Wile all those pimple face nerds in forensics are shaking up samples in test tubes in vibrators the people doing the reel work and actually use there narners are the psychologists who can pin point the killer long before those bed wetting dweebs in the lab send there samples to another bunch of dweebs to test the DNA.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yet again you're arguing against fact profiling is pseudoscientific nonsense , do some basic research.......
And here’s the thing: They’re not much better than random people off the street! A 2007 meta analysis by criminologists Brent Snook, Joseph Eastwood, Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, and Richard Cullen compared four studies where self-described criminal profilers were tasked with analyzing crime scene data and coming up with a profile, and compared their predictions to other groups like normal detectives or students.
They find that profilers do only slightly better than random people at predicting traits of offenders. “We contend that, in any field, an ‘expert’ should decisively outperform nonexperts (ie lay persons),” the authors write. They didn’t find that. They conclude that profiling is a “pseudoscientific technique,” of limited if any value to investigators.
Read that last piece again , bet you still persist in spouting nonsense, Mind hunter and Hannibal areTV shows not a series did you not onow that?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It’s not me it’s you who doesn’t get the facts
You mean after I just post up a meta analysis supporting my piece?
and I reckon Maxxs dum idea of quoting articles that say totally zippo is weering off on you now
But I posted a piece that includes a full study you never even read
. Show me one fact in it that psychologists are dike heads
I never once called them heads
or pseudo or whatever diss your trying to level at them.
The experts who did the study called profiling pseudoscientific nonsense I'm with the experts.
I'm telling you the facts of the matter but as usual you throw a hissy fit when faced with the truth , if you can prove otherwise do so.
Talking abou amateurish
Well that's you all over , all you ever do is shoot your mouth off and never once support any of your contentions with studies, or data ........are you related to Maxx?
Next you will be saying there's a god because you say so .......wait! You've already done that.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes and it did not support your peace because it is fake crap put up bt biased extreme nit jobs and it does not say one single thing and you couldn't even quote one single fact from it that supports your nonsense because it says not one single fact. The problem is that you didn't reed it and you didn't reed who those nits are and that they are radical nits whose knowledge on any thing can be written in bpld on a flees nuts. So your hole arguments is totally made up dog mess.. Your got to learn to get fects not crap.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bruh, you are on a lost cause with Dee. He's pathologically obsessed with having the last word and thinks that somehow means he wins. So, I say just let him have the last word and let ignorance be bliss. I would be far more interested if you had anything else though to offer than being fixated on some irrelevant individual. Be nice if we can not degenerate this, please.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes and it did not support your peace because it is fake crap put up bt biased extreme nit jobs and it does not say one single thing and you couldn't even quote one single fact from it that supports your nonsense because it says not one single
It totally supported my piece and you never even read the piece because you have to pay for full acess. Also you're that st-pid you call a highly respected journal " biased extreme ....nut jobs ,etc,etc)
. The problem is that you didn't reed it and you didn't reed who those nits are and that they are radical nits whose knowledge on any thing can be written in bpld on a flees nuts.
Got you , highly respected scientists are nuts all because a bible thumping chicken plucker from b-m hole USA says so .
So your hole arguments is totally made up dog mess.. Your got to learn to get fects not crap.
But you never quote facts all you have is incoherent ramblings which you somehow think are facts, you're a funny little fella
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bruh, you are on a lost cause with Dee.
You call anyone who disagrees with your opinionated n9nsense a lost cause
He's pathologically obsessed with having the last word and thinks that somehow means he wins.
Yet I as away from the site for 9 months while you were here typically having the lat word ......oh dear
Also the argument was over at my opening salvo
So, I say just let him have the last word and let ignorance be bliss
This from a guy who in is that ignorant claimed the FDA were a " most esteemed body"
. I would be far more interested if you had anything else though to offer than being fixated on some irrelevant individual.
At least I don't constantly stalk people like MC crawling and sulking by saying " do you write? You really should I would buy your book in a heart beat "
Cringe, now that truly makes you one totally irrelevant individual looking constantlu looking for approval from those who you deem your superior.
Be nice if we can not degenerate this, pleas
LOL says the loser who calls anyone who defends themselves "pathologically obsessed with having the last word"
Go talk with Barndog that's just about your intellectual level
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It did not support your dog mess dissing of psychology. And I totally explained why and it was because the article said absolutely not one thing that supports your dum assertion and whats more I told you that you didn't even quote one thing from it that supports what you said and it still shows because you still cant give one single quote from the article and I bet you wont because such information does not exist any where in the article does it.
And your sents of logic is totally void since how the heck do you work out that I didn't read it just because you have to pay, like what the. Not using your brain very well are you.
So I reckon you better tuck your tale between your legs and run away on this one to stop any more dog mess coming out.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It did not support your dog mess dissing of psychology.
You never read it and it totally supported my contentions. Profiling is pseudoscientific nonsense , I know you think TV shows like Mindhunter and Hannibal are documentaries, that's on you not me.
And I totally explained why and it was because the article said absolutely not one thing that supports your dum assertion and whats more I told you that you didn't even quote one thing from it that supports what you said and it still shows because you still cant give one single quote from the article and I bet you wont because such information does not exist any where in the article does it.
But you still didnt even read it , so ease up on the lying and read it im sure the world of Science awaits tge verdict of a bible thumping chicken plucker from Waltons mountain.
And your sents of logic is totally void since how the heck do you work out that I didn't read it just because you have to pay, like what the. Not using your brain very well are you.
But if you paid you would know what the article says , you don't so again lying makes you look like the sad loser you truly are
So I reckon you better tuck your tale between your legs and run away on this one to stop any more dog mess coming out.
Fabulous argument up to your usual chicken plucking standards
Even psychologists agree profiling is deeply unscientific, ouch ......bet you say " well they're also dum agreeing with a dog mess" etc , etc
Psychological profiling 'worse than useless'
Murder inquiries may be misled or delayed by psychologists who see themselves as real-life Crackers, researchers claim.
Police forces routinely ask behavioural scientists to draw up profiles of killers who are still at large, based on a knowledge of the victim and details recorded at the crime scene.
But according to a team of psychologists at Birmingham City University, the practice of offender profiling is deeply unscientific and risks bringing the field into disrepute.
In many cases, offender profiles are so vague as to be meaningless, according to psychologist Craig Jackson. At best, they have little impact on murder investigations; at worst they risk misleading investigators
Run away and cry now psychologists disagree with you and your buddies , its gotta hurt.....
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your still doging the truth aren't you for some funny reason and I wonder why. So for the third time quote any line what so ever in the hole entire article that supports your claim. And for the third time I say that you cant because there is not one single line in the hole total article that does and yourve been court out good and proper by some one who did a heap more quality research than you did.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Barnardot
While Dee's perspective is questionable, I've yet to see a clear rebuttal from you that articulates why his argument is unsupported. I've opted not to follow his repetitive comments anymore. However, if he remains consistent in his viewpoint, then his primary contention is:
"A 2015 journal pointed out issues with reproducing certain psychological studies; thus, all psychology is pseudoscience."
To put the "Replication Challenges in Psychology" into simple terms:
In psychology, researchers often redo experiments to check if they get the same outcome, a process known as replication. One experiment they try/tried to redo is about "Priming." For example, hearing the word "yellow" might make someone quickly think of "banana." But sometimes, when these experiments are redone, the results change. While some question the reliability of these priming studies, it's a huge leap of logic to label all of psychology as pseudoscience based on just this premise.
Reference: Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
The aforementioned information was provided to assist you should you pursue this topic further. Nonetheless, to be fair to @Dee, he did state that he believes psychology is at best pseudoscientific. And if that is his viewpoint then so be it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It did support my peace because it is not fake crap put up by biased extreme nit jobs and it does say more than one single thing and you couldn't even quote one single fact against it it supports me and not your nonsense because it says so . The problem is that you didn't reed it and you didn't reed who those nits are that you support and that they are radical nits whose knowledge on any thing can be written in bpld on a flees nuts. So your hole arguments is totally made up dog mess.. Your got to learn to get fects not crap.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
While Im Dee's perspective is questionable, I've yet to see a clear rebuttal from you that articulates why his argument is unsupported. I've opted not to follow his repetitive comments.
No you've actually opted out of defending your postion, your dishonesty is appalling.
I already told you and others over 10 reasons why psychology is pseudoscience your best efforts at a defence had you citing the FDA as an esteemed body, enough said.
However, if he remains consistent in his viewpoint, then his primary contention is:
"A 2015 journal pointed out issues with reproducing certain psychological studies; thus, all psychology is pseudoscience."
To put the "Replication Challenges in Psychology" into simple terms:
That's not my main contention it's one of several you avoided addressing.
In psychology, researchers often redo experiments to check if they get the same outcome, a process known as replication. One experiment they try/tried to redo is about "Priming." For example, hearing the word "yellow" might make someone quickly think of "banana." But sometimes, when these experiments are redone, the results change. While some question the reliability of these priming studies, it's not fair to label all of psychology as unreliable based on just this issue.
I gave 10 or more reasons why its pseudoscience
Reference: Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
The aforementioned information was provided to assist you should you pursue this topic further. Nonetheless, to be fair to @Dee, he did state that he believes psychology is at best pseudoscientific. And if that is his viewpoint then so be it.
Yes another spnarky remark and totally irrelevant as I already addressed that contention.
That remains my viewpoint and what a great pity that you Maxx and barndoor instead of making your case decided to indulge in making snide remarks all because I had the temerity to disagree with yous.
Remarkable the way bullies such as you and others fly into a rage because I have a different opinion and clearly explained why.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well sorry but just saying it is so is not a descent argument by any bodies standards. You have been challenged to quote one bit of that link that you posted that in any way supports your total balony assertion. And guess what. For the forth time now you have failed to do that and in fact avoided it like the plage because both you and me know very well that there is not one single bit in that article that supports your baloney. Repeat not one single sentence in that article supports your baloney. Is there. One more time is there yes or no. it is biased and extreme and speculated and deliberately circum spect its not even funny to put it mildly. It is nothing more than pseudo dog mess dressed up as lamb that only total dim nits would ever think that its relevant.
So you have had enough chances to quote but you haven't and refused and avoided doing so as usual you have been court out telling porkies once again. Not a very up the front person are you.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Listen up , even Z who believes psychology is a science has asked you ......While Dee's perspective is questionable, I've yet to see a clear rebuttal from you that articulates why his argument is unsupported.........
So I'm still waiting on your rebuttal , I posted up 2 pieces that totally support my contentions and all you can say is its a " dog mess" it's "dum "
Also you state " it is biased and extreme and speculated and deliberately circum spect " how come? Post up the biased part ? Also pscholgists are saying profillimg is nonsense so you now disagree with psychologists also?
You just shot yourself in the foot ......again
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Relevant Courses in Psychology at Harvard:
Concentration in Psychology:
Secondary in Psychology:
General Entry Requirements for Harvard College:
Notable Figures Associated with Psychology at Harvard:
Steven Pinker: A cognitive psychologist known for his research on language and evolutionary psychology. He's also a prolific author, with books such as "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and "Enlightenment Now."
Joshua Greene: A cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher, he's known for his research on moral judgment and decision-making. His work often integrates approaches from cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, and philosophy.
Elizabeth Spelke: A distinguished cognitive psychologist, she focuses on the cognitive development of infants, exploring topics like spatial cognition, number sense, and object representation.
Susan Carey: Renowned for her work on conceptual development, she investigates how children's understanding of concepts like number and causality evolve.
Matthew Nock: Recognized for his work on self-harm, suicide, and the assessment and improvement of risk prediction for these behaviors.
Jesse Snedeker: Focuses on language processing, language development, and the relationship between syntax and semantics.
Jason Mitchell: Explores the brain basis of social cognition, particularly the processes by which we contemplate ourselves and others.
Alison Gopnik: Though affiliated more closely with UC Berkeley, she received her PhD from Harvard. A leading figure in cognitive development, especially known for her work on children's learning and reasoning.
References:
Entry Requirements for PBS:
Notable Figures associated with Psychology at Cambridge
- Dr. Rogier Kievit: Focuses on the relationship between cognitive and brain development, especially in the realm of intelligence and executive functions.
These are just a few of the many accomplished individuals associated with psychology at Cambridge. It's also worth noting that the field is vast and constantly evolving, with new scholars and researchers making significant contributions regularly. For the latest updates and comprehensive details on faculty, alumni, and research outputs, it's always best to refer directly to the specific department or faculty websites of the University of Cambridge.References:
Psychology, Philosophy, and Linguistics (PPL):
Experimental Psychology:
Entry Requirements for PPL and Experimental Psychology:
Notable Figures associated with Psychology at Oxford:
Professor Dorothy Bishop: Renowned developmental neuropsychologist, especially known for her research on developmental language disorders.
Professor Robin Dunbar: Recognized for "Dunbar's number", which posits a limit to meaningful social relationships humans can maintain. His work largely revolves around evolutionary psychology and anthropology.
Professor Elaine Fox: Known for her research on the links between cognition and emotion and their influence on well-being and resilience.
Professor Sunetra Gupta: While primarily an infectious disease epidemiologist, her work intersects with aspects of behavioral psychology in the context of infectious disease transmission.
References:
If I'm not mistaken, this is all very real. Unless, of course, I'm in an alternate universe where 2+2 equals 5. But then again, what would experts who've dedicated their lives to their fields truly know? Satire!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Poor old Barndoor , you know that part of my piece highlighted in blue? That's called a link , you put your finger on it and press gently and it gives you access to 78 different studies that support my claims.
You ranting and raving is hilarious calm down......I cannot understand for you that requires work on your part which I don't hold out much hope for.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/steven-pinker-s-ideas-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/
If I'm not mistaken, this is all very real
Universities are real , I agree
. Unless, of course, I'm in an alternate universe where 2+2 equals 5
Where did I say universities or claims are not real?
. But then again, what would experts who've dedicated their lives to their fields truly know? Satire!
You mean like the " experts" who's work you totally supported by claiming the F.D.A are " esteemed" ( watch Z ignore this again)
Why do you resort to constantly lying by claiming I said things I never said?
Also you said that I was entitled to my opinion yet you're constantly attempting to make me change my mind whys that?
You also said I'm obsessed with having the last word yet you and Barndoor are chasing me around the site all because you are both arguing about things I never said, weird.
Here are a list of claims made by these " esteemed" pseudoscientists from " esteemed" universities......LOL
https://east.iu.edu/hss/psychology-myths/index.html
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you want to keep on being dishonest and evasive thats up to you but the only one your kidding is your self. No skin off my doolie.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you want to keep on being dishonest and evasive thats up to you
You mean by telling you there is over 70 links in the piece you pretend don't exist? The only one lying here is you.
but the only one your kidding is your self.
So " I'm kidding" myself by truthfully telling you there's over 70 links in my piece you only have to click on?
What a big child you are.
No skin off my doolie.
Well it actually is as youre that upset you're stalking me for over a week ......run along and pluck your chickens.....
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you review earlier discussions, you'll see that the topic you mentioned has already been extensively addressed.
Regarding @Dee, there's a clear disConnect. 'm 99.9% certain I'm not the one spouting nonsensical ideas. When @Dee tries to dismiss medical and academic science as fake, and @maxx claiming we all practice psychology daily, it undermines the conversation. These sound like remarks Deepak might make. Is the irony lost on anyone else?
I'm beginning to suspect that Dee might be infatuated with both @maxx and Deepak or is simply a troll with a bad-faith agenda.
Given his trajectory, I wouldn't be surprised if @Dee soon disputes the theory of evolution, the roundness of the Earth, climate change, vaccine efficacy, and other foundational scientific concepts. His current behavior certainly hints at that!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you review earlier discussions, you'll see that the topic you mentioned has already been extensively addressed.
Certainly ,not by you as all you've done is deflected and dodged so far.
Regarding @Dee, there's a clear disConnect.
Yet another clear example of you accusing me of your faults.
'm 99.9% certain I'm not the one spouting nonsensical ideas.
Making you 99% wrong ......come on buddy you said the FDA was " an esteemed body, , seriously ?
When @Dee tries to dismiss medical and academic science as fake
" medical science " .......roflmao .......Freudian therapy is now " medical science" or oxyconitin is not addictive.....LOL
, and @maxx claims we all practice psychology daily, it undermines the conversation. These sound like remarks Deepak might make. Is the irony lost on anyone else?
Actually Deepak acrually said that , but you of course wouldn't know that.
I'm beginning to suspect that Dee might be infatuated with both @maxx and Deepak or is simply a troll with a bad-faith agenda.
Says you a guy whos messaged me several times ( which I ignored) and now you are stalking and trolling me all because every single piece of bull you've posted up has been clearly refuted.
Given his trajectory,
This from you a drunkard and failure who has apologised to fellow members several times over your drunken nonsense , the funny part is youre just as st-pid without drink.
I wouldn't be surprised if @Dee soon disputes the theory of evolution
But you're the supporter of pseudoscience not I
, the roundness of the Earth, climate change, vaccine efficacy, and other foundational scientific concepts.
Back to making lies up I've never disputed the evidence for any of these topics
You see I'm not a gullible half wit like you who think opposites attract because psychologists said so , ESP exists because psychologists said so or lie detector tests are 100 per cent accurate because psychologists say so ......do you want a few more?
His current behavior certainly hints at that!
All this tripe from you the site drunk because you refuse to address any arguments made against your ignorant rants. Youre preaching and trolling at this stage.
Your current behaviour demonstrates you and Maxx are two peas in a pod , Maxx believes remote viewing is Scientific so do you , maybe because some psychologist said so.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The historical perspective is useful in that it illustrates these pitfalls perfectly: while the details have changed obviously, human brains have not changed significantly, and the same logical errors that people used to make in Ancient Greece people make today.
I agree with absolutely everything you wrote here. My point was that pseudoscientific representations was what many people commonly called "psychology" (or any other science) - as such, discussions such as this sometimes result in people talking past each other, meaning different things by the same word. At least this does not seem to be happening between us: we are on the same page as far as the terminology goes.
I do think that medicine is in a pretty serious crisis as well, on multiple accounts. The landmarks of a stagnant field - lack of fresh ideas and, instead, constant rehashing and recompiling of ideas of the old, without any significant movement forward; forfeiture of the causal reasoning in favor of the correlatory one; disproportionately high funding of the administrative complex surrounding the labs - are all there.
In comparison, look at computer science, or physics, or mathematics, or chemistry, or even archaeology... Or my favorite one - astrobiology, a field that itself can be considered an innovation. In these fields you have multiple papers suggesting very brave deviations from the old orthodoxy, new technology inspired by recent ideas, user-friendly software that anyone can download right now and start producing previously unseen analyses - multiple times a day. Take a very narrow question of possibility of life on Venus: there are hundreds of papers on this exploring various aspects of it and proposing very counter-intuitive experiments. This is what science is at its best, when it is in its natural, healthy state.
Psychology, medicine, economics, sociology - these fields, while certainly not without regular meaningful advancements, unfortunately are quite stagnant. They do not attract young and ambitious researchers and, instead, are chiefly populated by old professors sitting on their laurels.
I will make one clarification: there are regional variations that are worth noting. Medicine seems to be doing quite well in Asian countries such as Taiwan, Singapore, Korea and Japan, that are looking into utilizing nanotechnology or stem cells, among other things. On the West, aside from machine learning methods (that themselves came from computer science, not medicine), I do not see much novelty in the field, despite a VAST array of unanswered questions. There is a lot of serious work done in biology, but connecting it to medicine often proves to be a challenge.
A lot of what I said here is more of my personal opinion, and I would have a hard time backing it up with real data - so take it with a grain of salt, please.
I believe that certain methodologies are universal and derive directly from the demands of the scientific method. I am not saying that meta-analyses are useless; however, when meta-analyses are the norm and novel research are the exception, then the field desperately needs a fresh air, in my opinion.
In theory, I would agree with you. In practice, it is quite well known that peer-review procedures and standards vary significantly between journals, and, less generally, between fields. In pure mathematics one can rarely get away with even one small mistake, while in observational physics it is quite common for a paper to undergo multiple major post-publication revisions often correcting something as glaring as an extra order of magnitude in the table due to an error in a Python script. In computer science reputable journals expect some measure of performance improvement upon the best method in existence (which does have the downside that papers have to be written extremely quickly and, perhaps, hastily, as what is cutting edge today may become obsolete in a couple of months), while in biology often simply suggesting a principally new modestly performing method is sufficient.
My impression is that in most social sciences people can get away with something that in "harder" disciplines would not even be considered an original contribution. Many of the analyses people seem to do there almost anyone could do at their home in their spare time, as long as they have the data on hand. While for every single paper I have contributed to, journals expected some originality in methodology, something that no one has ever done. Not just "this data has not been analyzed yet", but "data has not been analyzed yet in this framework". I realize that it might not be necessary for every single paper for every single field - one could use the same method to study 3 archly different archaeological sites and draw 3 different sets of conclusions from them - yet this is what I expect to be the norm in a healthy field. When every researcher cares enough about their hypotheses that they are not satisfied with just running some analysis routines through them, but try to think about them in a way no one else has thought before.
All of this could be just my personal projection, but this is my best take on this.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Okay I have to admit that you win this argument and really I went totally over bored in questioning you so much and I have to say that your totally right so I hope we can be friends now and fight the reel trolls and dufises who tell lies all the time and then we can make it better for every one on this site. So once again I apologize totally. Because I didn't realize there were so many links and I must have scimmed over the evidence when I red it that you gave that supports your argument that says psychologists are pseudo scientists and dont do any thing more than people on the street.
I have to fess up that your totally right so I guess as friends now I can ask just one small favor because my English is a lot better now but not full up to speed and thats why I proberly missed the bits about proving your argument and I know I pestered you 7 times before which is proberly why you didnt answer because you proberly thought that that Barnardot is being a jurk. But as friends may be can you just quote just one sentence that backs up your argument please. Thanks a lot friend. I look forwood to it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well as I said I didn't see anything at all because I must of scimmed over that so can you please quote that bit your talking about here and show the link because now Im reel interested in reading up all about it. I just never realized that that was the case so Im really interested. Thanks, your a grate friend for being able to inform the true facts.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra