Psychology: Generaly defined as the Scientific Study of the Mind and Behavior

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am on the fence on this one, I don't know.

My answer is I really don't know if psychology is a science or a pseudo-science.  Psychology blurs the line between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Psychology is having a crisis of replication. Psychology is under regulated pretty much anyone can call their-selves a therapist. On the other end of the spectrum is clinical psychologists who usually have Phds. In the middle is psychiatry.

I recommend Fads, Fakes, and Frauds: Exploding Myths in Culture, Science and Psychology by Tomasz Witkowski, Roy Baumeister (Foreword by), Ken Fleming (Translator) and Mistakes were Made but not by me books. Yes, two books to answer this question because it is a complex and difficult question.

Just read about all the false confessions and the failure of repressed memories, split personality, and using hypothesis to remember alien abductions. To rephrase, how much pseudo-science and unqualified people can you allow in before you have drifted into unregulated pseudo-science?

 

maxx

it is a social science. it deals with understanding the brain.. It is a systematic and controlled study of human behavior. Is psychology a science? (Spoiler alert: Yes) | University of Phoenix   @Dreamer

Dee

No, it's not,  the main flaw of Psychology as a Science is its inability to make accurate predictions. Its a pseudoscience at best.

You took a severe beating in this debate several times but you persist , whys that?

https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/unethical-experiements-psychology/


Come on buddy electric shock treatment on kids? The milgram experiment? The good Samaritan test? Seriously!! All solid Science in your opinion .....WOW!

jack

Dee said:

Come on buddy electric shock treatment on kids? The milgram experiment? The good Samaritan test? Seriously!! All solid Science in your opinion .....WOW!

Hello Dee:

The sole purpose of science is to BE wrong.  WOW!

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/its-all-right-be-wrong-science

excon

Dee

@jack

You should read the articles you post before deliberately misquoting them.

You were most likely missing from school ( again) when your Science teacher said..........

" Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now. Classically, science’s main goal has been building knowledge and understanding, regardless of its potential applications — for example, investigating the chemical reactions that an organic compound undergoes in order to learn about its structure. However, increasingly, scientific research is undertaken with the explicit goal of solving a problem or developing a technology. Along the path to that goal, new knowledge and explanations are constructed."

You're welcome.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

No, it's not,  the main flaw of Psychology as a Science is its inability to make accurate predictions. Its a pseudoscience at best.

You took a severe beating in this debate several times but you persist , whys that?

https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/unethical-experiements-psychology/


Come on buddy electric shock treatment on kids? The milgram experiment? The good Samaritan test? Seriously!! All solid Science in your opinion .....WOW!

@Dee I do believe we have never debated on this. Nonetheless, I will provide feedback for your response. 

Inaccurate Predictions and Pseudoscience Claim: Psychology is a multifaceted discipline that merges the biological, cognitive, and social aspects of human behavior. While it's true that certain areas within psychology may face challenges in prediction, this doesn't negate its scientific foundation. Many sciences, from quantum physics to meteorology, grapple with prediction complexities. The inexactness of certain predictions does not make a discipline pseudoscientific. Moreover, several branches of psychology, such as cognitive neuroscience and behavioral psychology, regularly utilize rigorous scientific methods and produce replicable results.

Addressing Past Unethical Experiments: Pointing to the past ethical transgressions of psychology experiments doesn't devalue the entire field. The experiments you mentioned (electric shock treatments, Milgram's obedience study, the Good Samaritan test) are notable in part because they violated the ethical standards we uphold today. Their flaws were instrumental in establishing more stringent ethical guidelines in psychological research.

It's essential to differentiate between the methods employed in research and the scientific principles underlying the discipline. For instance, the discovery of the DNA double helix, one of biology's cornerstone achievements, involved questionable ethics in the acquisition of Rosalind Franklin's data. But these ethical lapses don't undermine the scientific validity of biology itself.

The critique using electric shock treatments as an example is particularly misleading. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains a clinically endorsed treatment for severe depression and other conditions. While its use, especially in the past, has been controversial, it's wrong to categorically label it as unscientific.

On Personal Attacks: Resorting to comments about "taking a severe beating" in the debate isn't a substantive critique of psychology's merits or demerits. It's crucial in scholarly conversations to address the subject matter and not deviate to ad hominem attacks. When discussing the value and ethics of a scientific discipline, it's essential to remain objective and not allow emotions to cloud judgment.

Conclusion: While psychology, like all sciences, has had moments of ethical lapse and challenges, it is not appropriate to label the entire field as pseudoscientific based on these instances. Science is an evolving discipline, where mistakes of the past inform the guidelines and methodologies of the present. 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

I actually said " it's a pseudoscience at best " , I'm sticking with that.

ZeusAres42

Dreamer said:

My answer is I really don't know if psychology is a science or a pseudo-science.  Psychology blurs the line between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Psychology is having a crisis of replication. Psychology is under regulated pretty much anyone can call their-selves a therapist. On the other end of the spectrum is clinical psychologists who usually have Phds. In the middle is psychiatry.

I recommend Fads, Fakes, and Frauds: Exploding Myths in Culture, Science and Psychology by Tomasz Witkowski, Roy Baumeister (Foreword by), Ken Fleming (Translator) and Mistakes were Made but not by me books. Yes, two books to answer this question because it is a complex and difficult question.

Just read about all the false confessions and the failure of repressed memories, split personality, and using hypothesis to remember alien abductions. To rephrase, how much pseudo-science and unqualified people can you allow in before you have drifted into unregulated pseudo-science?

 

@Dreamer

The Replication Crisis is indeed a significant concern, and psychology has faced challenges in this regard. However, it's worth noting that many fields, not just psychology, have faced such crises. The very fact that the field recognizes, debates, and seeks to address this issue shows its commitment to the scientific method and process of self-correction.

On the topic of regulation and title protection, the assertion that almost anyone can call themselves a therapist might be misleading. In many jurisdictions, the titles 'psychologist', 'clinical psychologist', or 'psychotherapist' are protected and require specific qualifications to be used. The regulation varies, but many professionals in the field undergo rigorous training and evaluation.

It's essential to distinguish between psychiatrists and psychologists. While they overlap, they serve different roles in the mental health sphere. Psychiatrists are medical professionals who can prescribe medication, whereas psychologists often focus more on therapy and human behavior research. Both fields are rooted in rigorous scientific and clinical practice.

Regarding the literature you've recommended, while both books might shed light on particular controversies or misconceptions, they don't encapsulate the entirety of psychology. Drawing conclusions about an entire field based on select critiques can give a skewed perspective.

Discussing controversial concepts in psychology, like repressed memories or alien abductions, certainly highlights areas that need more scrutiny. However, it's crucial not to let these contentious points overshadow the vast areas within psychology that are well-supported and beneficial. Many therapeutic methods, like cognitive-behavioral therapy, have extensive research backing their effectiveness.

In closing, while it's valid to scrutinize and question any scientific field, it's also essential to see the broader picture. Psychology's core aim is understanding the human mind and behavior. Like any other science, it's evolving, adapting, and improving based on continuous research and feedback. The presence of debates and continuous research is indicative of a dynamic scientific field.

Dee

@Dreamer

You normally avoid debate by saying you're really busy and never responding like you did regarding the climate change debate in the past .

Your final postion on  how the working class couldnt afford electric cars was " let them walk its good for them" again proving you're a spoiled ,arrogant little child with views to match.


Let's start with a correction on one of your severely flawed assumptions from your copy and pasted piece..........

Although it's effective and safe, ECT is not a common procedure. That's likely the case for several reasons, a few of which include: ECT is rarely a first-line treatment for depression. There are several newer medications available to treat this condition.....


Psychology is pseudoscience end of story , read on from The LA Times......

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn’t rooted in snobbery; it’s rooted in intellectual frustration. It’s rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don’t have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It’s rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That’s right. Psychology isn’t science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn’t science. How exactly should “happiness” be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn’t necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can’t use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I’m feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

Saying my opponent took a severe beating is not an Ad Hominem that is unless now factual statements are labelled personal attacks on this site which seems to be the case when dealing with drama Queens like you and Mad Maxx.

Maxx has posted this topic up possibly 8 times now trying to prove that people like Deepak Chopra and other quacks are genuine Scientists , your standing up to defend him may get you a pat on the head you were also one of the ones who kept your mouth shut when he was issuing threats of violence a few months back , amazing how all you cowards defend each other but remain mute when one of your own plays the bully boy.

maxx

there have been many so called solid science experiments upon humans that were much worse than any done in the name of psychology. I could post various links to point these out however you would simply dismiss them, even though they are true.  Also, pseudo basically means false or a sham.
do you think psychology is a sham? We use every single day in our own lives when interacting with others, Psychology also follows the same criteria as solid sciences. if you read my link, you can see this. Other than you think it is just a way to bilk people out of money(in which the medical community does far worse)WHY do you think psychology is not a social science? @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Psychology is pseudoscience read my article.

Barnardot

@Dee ;No, it's not,  the main flaw of Psychology as a Science is its inability to make accurate predictions.

Your got to realize that psychology is a science and its in its infantasy. Look at the other sciences when they were young. They did some pretty dum hit and miss stuff and psychology is still doing that. But what the deal is is that psychology is total complexity at a total new level. 

There is a lot to be learned but if you keep on scoffing at shrinks then your doing the wrong thing because what about all the good stuff shrinks do like helping soldiers who come back from war from becoming spazos. And what about all the AI stuff thats going on. All those dweeby scientists sitting a round with there pimples and thick glasses wont get any where with out psychologists.

Dee

@Barnardot

Read my piece you may learn something.

Barnardot

@Dee ;Read my piece you may learn something.

Well I read your piece and I learned that your got it in for psychology for no real reason. Like you said " it's a pseudoscience at best " which is totally wrong any way. And then you kept on repeating it like your absessed and wont look at what good psychology is doing and how complex it is compared with other sciences where dweebs put a hole lot of stuff in a test tube and shake it up in a vibrator. 
What about the social profiling that psychologists do that catch killers. If you want to keep going on about ECT then may be I could start knocking thalidomide and all the other dum things that so called scientists have done and continue. But just knocking things because you just don't like them is being a bit rich I reckon.

maxx

dee.  i did read the link and as well the many other stories on why some consider psychology a sham science.  however psychology began long ago, and it is the study of the mind and human behaviorism. It follows the same methods as hard sciences. every single day we use psychology in interaction with others by trying to understand their behaviors and attitudes.  True?  now clinical psychology performs studies and tests just like hard sciences do. These studies are controlled and takes out as many random variables as possible to form facts and conclusions. Psychology is a difficult science simply because the brain itself is difficult to understand. everyone uses psychology in some form or the other. so you can not say psychology is false or does not exist. It is a hybrid science that is developing.  Just like many hard sciences that first began, it is a science that studies human nature and how people interact with others and how the mind works in conjunction with society and its problems.  Psychology: Definition, Goals And Branches (uou.ac.in) @Dee

Dee

@Barnardot

You may have read the article but you understandably didn't like it as its the opinion of real Scientists , you stick with your pseudoscience it needs people like you.

Dee

@maxx

It's a pseudoscience, for the reasons I quoted.

So, the main flaw of Psychology as a Science is its inability to make accurate predictions.

The field is full of quacks tragically quackery is encouraged in modern societies like the US .

maxx

there are just as many quacks in every field. also, even hard sciences do not make accurate predictions.  I told you that the brain is much harder to form accurate conclusions than some sciences, but that does not mean it is a fallacy. Do you use psychology?  yes  we all do. is your daily use of psychology flawed?  Psychology as a science is very young and yet it is still following the same steps as all science did at their infancy. Your main problem in not accepting it, is you classify it in thesame way as things like voodoo, or astrology. Their are many reputable psychologists and are not out to bilk others out of money. Quacks exist every where in all fields. Take out the idea of quackery in psychology dee, and your other reasons do not hold up. give me another reason aside from quacks( which i am sure the medical field has much more) that psychology is not a science. let me prove you wrong. You say it not produce verifiable results? It does, just not all of the time; just like any science. Police uses psychology. every time you see a stranger on the street, you are using psychology. Every time you try to figure out why a person did something, that is psychology. If you think psychology is useless, then why does everyone use it?  Every time you profile someone base upon their looks or action, you are using psychology. . after an argument with someone and you have time to think about it, you are using psychology.  You use psychology on your self.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

It's predictive powers are extremely limited ,scientists can place a pobe on a postage stamp.on a distant planet if need be ,psychologists try to tell complete strangers what makes them happy /unhappy and mostly failing miserably in the task.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@Dreamer

Psychology is pseudoscience end of story , read on from The LA Times......

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn’t rooted in snobbery; it’s rooted in intellectual frustration. It’s rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don’t have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It’s rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That’s right. Psychology isn’t science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn’t science. How exactly should “happiness” be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn’t necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can’t use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I’m feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

@Dee

I would like to explore this article and the inaccurate claim that psychology is a pseudo-science. Let's dive in: 

The stance that psychology is a pseudoscience is not only contentious but overlooks the depth and rigor with which psychologists study the human mind and behavior. The claim that all scientists dismiss psychology is a sweeping generalization. In reality, many from varied scientific disciplines collaborate closely with psychologists. A prime example is the field of neuroscience, which leans heavily on psychological principles to gain deeper insights into human behavior and cognition.

A central argument against psychology's status as a science is based on its perceived inability to claim "secular truth" akin to the hard sciences. However, this is a misrepresentation. Every scientific discipline is marked by its scope and limitations. While physics may elucidate the fundamental laws of the universe, psychology strives to comprehend the complex and diverse nature of human behavior and cognition. These endeavors, although different in their focus, are not unequal in their methodological depth or significance.

The assertion that psychology doesn't meet the five basic requirements of science doesn't withstand close examination. Psychology possesses a vast lexicon of rigorously defined terms. Standardized tests, scales, and other tools are developed to quantify its varied constructs. Numerous psychological studies stand out for their controlled experimental design aimed at determining causality with precision. Like all scientific disciplines, psychology places a paramount importance on the reproducibility of results. The rise of open science initiatives in the field reflects this dedication. Moreover, psychological theories are consistently evaluated, improved, or sometimes even replaced based on empirical findings.

Using happiness research as a representative of psychology's alleged non-scientific nature is misguided. Even though happiness might seem like an elusive concept, psychologists have established systematic methodologies to investigate it. Constructs such as "well-being" or "life satisfaction" provide tangible measures of what many might term "happiness" in daily language. Instruments like the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) or the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) have been forged to offer quantitative data. Further, understanding the variance in constructs like happiness across cultures, cross-cultural psychology becomes crucial, ensuring that psychological concepts resonate with local contexts.

Lastly, suggesting that psychology's scientific legitimacy is compromised because it doesn’t employ traditional scientific tools like rulers or microscopes is a flawed notion. The discipline has an array of specialized tools for the study of the human mind, from fMRI and EEG scans to detailed surveys. These aren't whimsical choices; they signify a commitment to standardize and quantify the dynamic nature of human cognition and behavior.

In wrapping up, the sophistication, range, and exactitude of psychology firmly anchor it within the realm of science. Even as its subject matter, the human mind, is inherently changeable and multifarious, psychology's methodology remains rooted in systematic, evidence-based, and empirical practices. Recognizing the unique characteristics of various fields of study is crucial, and it's paramount to acknowledge and honor the methodologies each adopts within its sphere.

References

• Banich, M. T., & Compton, R. J. (2018). Cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Coolican, H. (2017). Research methods and statistics in psychology. Routledge.
• Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2018). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2012). Culture and psychology (5th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
• Stanovich, K. E. (2012). How to think straight about psychology. Boston: Pearson.

Dee

@ZeusAres42 ;

I'm sticking with what  actual Scientists say.

Take a look.at the vast amount of quacks in the psychology field it's alarming ,and do some research on why it attracts so many . quacks 

Psychology is quackery masquerading as Science its practitioners are out to fleece the unwary (.mostly)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

The field of psychology is a joke as the above report clearly demonstrates.

John_C_87

Argument Topic: Well Done.

@ZeusAres42

Psychology as s a subject is medical practice. The studies which the practitioner undertakes during the medical process are said to be scientific. So yes, you can say Psychology is a science, however the more accurate term might be said as Psychology is an idea of the collection of sciences held and used in a form of form of medical practice. It is important to note that science has the burden of holding truths, this does mean it must hold whole truth and nothing but truth as well as laws of science.  

Psychology Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

maxx

not true. they do not tell strangers s such which is why they have more than one session. the psychologist uses the first few sessions to get to know the individuals.  I am not sure who first stated it, however the more you know a person, the more of their ways of thinking and how they act to certain situations; then we can easily judge on how he would act and think in whatever activity or encounter that he may find him self in. also do not confuse psychology with psychiatry There is much differences. No psychology is not an exact science in where it can predict everything, yet it is very much scientifically inclined It is based upon simple deduction; deduction in which we all use everyday, and people have been using psychology since we became hiumans. I am sure that you have to agree with that any way. When one sees a psychologist, the psychologist learns as much as possible about the person in the first few session. he explores as how the person lives, his work, home life, his friends, basically learns as much as he can about his life style. The problem or reason the person saw the psychologist is then easily understood and he directs the person from that point on. A pseudo science? no. not in the least.  a hard science?  no.  however it is a social science. Do you consider archeology a science? They have more tools and are studing the past, yet so many times their conclusions have been proven wrong. Same with many sciences, especially those of when they were in their infancy. Knowledge is the key to all sciences.. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Well.yes it is true..Psychology is full.to the brim.with quacks it's never had a good name and it never will , but that's cool.you stick with the pseudoscience it's your type of thing after all.

maxx

a good name?  by you, a standard of one? There are many  psychologists out there who spent years in college to achieve their status. one does not walk into the 5 and dime to get a degree. How do you know there re quacks in the field? Ever been to one? of course not. They dont sit in a circus tent like madam gadivi staring into a crystal ball. The medical field bilks millions of dollars from insurance companies that their patients pay for.I aske you before about your reasoning aside of thinking they are but quacks. I have explained how psychologists work. do you actually refute that everyone uses psychology? Be a little more les dogmatic dee;  read the following link at least. it is brief and explains how this soft science follows the same principles as other sciences.The Ongoing Debate on Psychology: Is it Science? | Science Times   @Dee

Dee

@maxx

People use their senses ie common sense don't go re- branding it " pschology" ,
you want to continue supporting quackery knock yourself out but stop trying to sell it to me.

maxx

well you refuse to answer my questions. and i can not believe you think we do not use psychology in our everyday lives. it is not the use of our senses as you stated but by our reasoning and thinking processes. just the act of profiling someone based upon their looks is  form of psychology, for we make observations, draw conclusions, and form decisions based upon their looks. police do this all of the time. They also use it in interrogations. You are sadly mistaken if you dont believe we use it in our everyday lives. another example. i asked a question on why so many kids like violent video games. you will base your answer on many things. how they grew up, their friends, perhaps education, lifestyle and so on. exactly what psychologist would do. if i ask how we can change this behavior; you will perhaps point that they need more control or discipline. better education. if your child came up to you and asks how he can get off these games, you may sit him down and figure it out. you are using psychology all of the time. if you grant me that, we can move on to the other phase of the debate on how psychology is a science if it is based upon the same criteria as other sciences. 

Dee

@maxx

I refused nothing psychology is pseudoscience you disagree I care not , I'm sticking with science.

78 percent of tests In psychology cannot be replicated making it pseudoscientific nonsense.

Your latest contention is we all use psychology daily and do it very well , so why do you need a degree to do what you admit we all do naturally?

You're very confused it seems.

maxx

psychologists gets degrees from universities; universities do not give degrees in pseudo sciences One does not NEED a degree to use or apply psychology, just to use it for the general public; just like one does not need a degree tp perform many medical procedures or to conduct science experiments. society simply demands a degree to perform such things for various reasons, safeguards and so on. They want to make sure they are capable of understanding the profession. I ask you once again as to why you think it is not a science. You have not really answered that question nor explained your reasoning..you got to show me more than simple denial.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

But you admitted we are all psychologists but yet  you need a paid degree for " safeguards " seriously?


You keep asking why I think it's not science and I've told you why 9 times now you dummy.....let's rinse and repeat ......
78 percent of tests In psychology cannot be replicated making it pseudoscientific nonsense........ 
Read my piece by real scientists you dummy instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

I'm sticking with what  actual Scientists say.

Take a look.at the vast amount of quacks in the psychology field it's alarming ,and do some research on why it attracts so many . quacks 

Psychology is quackery masquerading as Science its practitioners are out to fleece the unwary (.mostly)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

The field of psychology is a joke as the above report clearly demonstrates.

@Dee

I will contend that out of the two of us, I am the one sticking with what science says and will continue to do so. Prior to this post I substantially refuted your misinterpretation of the science of psychology. In addition, I also exemplified how that article you posted from the LA Times was a misrepresentation of what psychology is. I have done an abundance of research on this already which was also reflected in the references I cited in my previous response to you; I guess you didn't bother to read that post. I am also getting the impression that you didn't read the OP or any other of my responses. This is reflected in that you appear to be just repeating the same argument instead of actually challenging any points of pertinence. Nonetheless, for the benefit of any future spectators that are interested in what the actual scienctists say I will continue to challenge your assertion here where you bring another article to try and support your contention but ultimately fail to do so. Let's dive in:

The characterization of psychology as “quackery masquerading as Science” is a viewpoint rooted in certain criticisms but overlooks the comprehensive and rigorous work that underpins the discipline. It is essential to approach such generalizations with caution and recognize the nuance and diversity within the field.

First and foremost, the link to a report from The Guardian addresses concerns regarding the reproducibility of psychological experiments. While the reproducibility crisis has indeed been a topic of discussion in the scientific community, it's worth noting that it isn't limited to psychology alone. Disciplines like biology, medicine, and even physics have faced similar challenges (Baker, 2016). The very fact that the psychological community is actively addressing and rectifying these issues testifies to its commitment to scientific rigor (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).

Additionally, characterizing an entire field by the actions or qualifications of a few practitioners is an overgeneralization. In fact, to use an analogy dismissing the entire field of psychology based on a few problematic studies or practitioners is like throwing away an entire basket of apples just because you found a couple of rotten ones. In both cases, you'd be overlooking the majority that are still good and valuable.While there might be individuals who misuse or misrepresent psychological principles, the majority of psychologists are dedicated professionals who undergo rigorous training. They adhere to ethical standards set by organizations like the American Psychological Association and contribute positively to mental health care, education, business, and other areas. Organizations within the UK that psychology practitioners adhere to incude the British Psychological Society (BPS), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC, Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP), British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP), British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). 

Furthermore, the assertion that psychology practitioners are “out to fleece the unwary” seems to stem from misconceptions about the profession. Like any discipline, there will be a minority who might not uphold the highest standards. However, this doesn't undermine the countless therapists, counselors, researchers, and educators who work diligently to help individuals and contribute to our understanding of the human mind and behavior.

Lastly, the application and impact of psychological research in real-world settings cannot be overlooked. From therapeutic interventions that improve mental well-being (Hofmann et al., 2012) to organizational practices that enhance workplace efficiency, the tangible benefits of psychology are manifold.

In closing, while any scientific field, including psychology, is subject to scrutiny and continuous improvement, it's vital to approach such criticisms with a balanced perspective. The reproducibility issue is a genuine concern, but it doesn't negate the vast body of reliable and beneficial psychological research or the positive impact of professional practitioners in various sectors.

P.S.: It's essential to recognize that the presence of a few individuals promoting pseudoscientific ideas doesn't invalidate an entire academic and scientific discipline. Just because personalities, like Deepak Chopra might employ scientific jargon in misleading ways, doesn't mean they represent the principles or rigor of psychology as a whole. Building an argument against a discipline based on such exceptions is both misguided and overly simplistic. It's similar to dismissing the entirety of medicine as pseudoscience simply because of the existence of a few fraudulent practices or unconventional treatments.

---

References:

• Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News, 533(7604), 452.
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
• Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive therapy and research, 36(5), 427-440.

ZeusAres42

jack said:

Dee said:

Come on buddy electric shock treatment on kids? The milgram experiment? The good Samaritan test? Seriously!! All solid Science in your opinion .....WOW!

Hello Dee:

The sole purpose of science is to BE wrong.  WOW!

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/its-all-right-be-wrong-science

excon

@jack

The assertion "The sole purpose of science is to BE wrong" is a reductionist view of the scientific process. While science does involve testing hypotheses, many of which are proven wrong, its primary aim is to understand the natural world. The methodical observations and experiments in science work to form accurate models and theories. It's not just about being wrong; it's about progressing closer to the truth. When errors occur, they often lead to new discoveries, underscoring science's adaptability. In essence, while errors are a part of the scientific journey, they are not its sole purpose; the quest for knowledge is.

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

there have been many so called solid science experiments upon humans that were much worse than any done in the name of psychology. I could post various links to point these out however you would simply dismiss them, even though they are true.  Also, pseudo basically means false or a sham.
do you think psychology is a sham? We use every single day in our own lives when interacting with others, Psychology also follows the same criteria as solid sciences. if you read my link, you can see this. Other than you think it is just a way to bilk people out of money(in which the medical community does far worse)WHY do you think psychology is not a social science? @Dee

@maxx

Esteemed participants and listeners, the defense of psychology as a legitimate science is a viewpoint I understand and respect. However, for the sake of clarity and constructive debate, let's address a few key points:

Firstly, the assertion regarding ethically questionable experiments in other fields compared to psychology requires specific examples for a meaningful discussion. Broad generalizations don't facilitate a deep dive into the issue.

Secondly, while we should approach all evidence with an open mind, it's imperative that we avoid presuming reactions, as seen in the statement about dismissing links. Evidence should stand on its own merit.

The clarification on 'pseudo' is appreciated and accurate. However, the challenge posed by the rhetorical question about psychology being a 'sham' detracts from the core argument.

The everyday use of psychology in interactions is a valid point and underscores its integral role in our lives. But when defending its scientific merit, it would be more impactful to delve deeper into its methodologies, empirical foundations, and contributions.

Lastly, the critique of the medical community and its financial practices is a significant issue but feels out of place in this debate. To thoroughly address and defend psychology's position as a social science, it's best we stick to its methodologies, impact, and evolution rather than diverting to broader criticisms of unrelated fields.

In wrapping up, the essence of the argument, which is the legitimacy of psychology as a science, is one we should all acknowledge. But for a fruitful discussion, clarity, specificity, and relevance are key.

Dee

@ZeusAres42



I will contend that out of the two of us, I am the one sticking with what science says and will continue to do so.

Yet you totally ignore what the Science says as  you post up sources that totally disagree with your own contentions and are totally unaware of this fact.


 Prior to this post I substantially refuted your misinterpretation of the science of psychology.

No you didn't you posted up an emotional opinion piece void of anything substantive 

 In addition, I also exemplified how that article you posted from the LA Times was a misrepresentation of what psychology is.

Another thing you got wrong as you couldn't demonstrate how the article was wrong , you still can't.


 I have done an abundance of research on this already which was also reflected in the references I cited in my previous response to you; I guess you didn't bother to read that post. I am also getting the impression that you didn't read the OP or any other of my responses. This is reflected in that you appear to be just repeating the same argument instead of actually challenging any points of pertinence.

You don't do " research " you pretend to , I will demonstrate shortly tht yet again I'm correct using your sources to prove you make it up as you go along.

Nonetheless, for the benefit of any future spectators that are interested in what the actual scienctists say I will continue to challenge your assertion here where you bring another article to try and support your contention but ultimately fail to do so. Let's dive in:

You 've challenged nothing all you're doing is crowing what a great researcher you are yet cannot even face the fact that most psychological experiments cannot be replicated 

The characterization of psychology as “quackery masquerading as Science” is a viewpoint rooted in certain criticisms but overlooks the comprehensive and rigorous work that underpins the discipline. It is essential to approach such generalizations with caution and recognize the nuance and diversity within the field.

LOL sure thing, a whole discipline founded more or less on the inane bleatings of the father of Psychology and Ace con man Sigmund Fraud

First and foremost, the link to a report from The Guardian addresses concerns regarding the reproducibility of psychological experiments. While the reproducibility crisis has indeed been a topic of discussion in the scientific community, it's worth noting that it isn't limited to psychology alone. Disciplines like biology, medicine, and even physics have faced similar challenges (Baker, 2016). 

Nice swerve accuse other disciplines of the same flaws and  like magic those flaws dissapper, seriously?

You seem to think saying ( Baker ,2016) is somehow making a case for you , appeals to authorities you havent even read are hardly convincing , I'm still waiting on you to make an actual argument instead of constantly swerving.

The very fact that the psychological community is actively addressing and rectifying these issues testifies to its commitment to scientific rigor (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).

Another baseless claim you have zero proof for how is it "actively" addressing and rectifying these issues?

You just made that up didnt you? Heres the part where I demonstrate clearly you actually read nothing you claim to have read instead you pretend and try to convince others this is the case.

If you even bothered to read Open Science collaboration,  2015 you surely would have read the main contention put forward which was ......

Replication issuse will not salvage the trustworthiness of Psychology,  ouch you just shot yourself in the foot again.

Additionally, characterizing an entire field by the actions or qualifications of a few practitioners is an overgeneralization. In fact, to use an analogy dismissing the entire field of psychology based on a few problematic studies or practitioners is like throwing away an entire basket of apples just because you found a couple of rotten ones. In both cases, you'd be overlooking the majority that are still good and valuable

You want to support pseudoscience go for it , even your own sources rubbish your claims

.While there might be individuals who misuse or misrepresent psychological principles, the majority of psychologists are dedicated professionals who undergo rigorous training. They adhere to ethical standards set by organizations like the American Psychological Association and contribute positively to mental health care, education, business, and other areas. Organizations within the UK that psychology practitioners adhere to incude the British Psychological Society (BPS), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC, Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP), British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP), British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). 

Nonsense, the field is brim full of charlatans and quacks 

Furthermore, the assertion that psychology practitioners are “out to fleece the unwary” seems to stem from misconceptions about the profession. Like any discipline, there will be a minority who might not uphold the highest standards. However, this doesn't undermine the countless therapists, counselors, researchers, and educators who work diligently to help individuals and contribute to our understanding of the human mind and behavior.

Its sadly true the field attracts scammers and quacks.

Lastly, the application and impact of psychological research in real-world settings cannot be overlooked. From therapeutic interventions that improve mental well-being (Hofmann et al., 2012) to organizational practices that enhance workplace efficiency, the tangible benefits of psychology are manifold.

Nonsense,  " workplace efficiency " where do you get this bunk? Oh dear yet another appeal to authority  ( Hofmannet al, 2022) LOL .......et al ....,hahahahahaa.....

In closing, while any scientific field, including psychology, is subject to scrutiny and continuous improvement, it's vital to approach such criticisms with a balanced perspective. The reproducibility issue is a genuine concern, but it doesn't negate the vast body of reliable and beneficial psychological research or the positive impact of professional practitioners in various sectors.

Actually its the reproducibility crisis and it totally undermines the whole field and proves its pseudoscience at best 

P.S.: It's essential to recognize that the presence of a few individuals promoting pseudoscientific ideas doesn't invalidate an entire academic and scientific discipline. Just because personalities, like Deepak Chopra might employ scientific jargon in misleading ways, doesn't mean they represent the principles or rigor of psychology as a whole. Building an argument against a discipline based on such exceptions is both misguided and overly simplistic. It's similar to dismissing the entirety of medicine as pseudoscience simply because of the existence of a few fraudulent practices or unconventional treatments.

Read above again , and at least attempt to read your " research" next time your opinion pieces are just that and you haven't posted up one piece to defend your unfounded assertions , in actual fact your one piece admitted how untrustworthy Psychology was.

maxx

You apparently do not understand that every person and brain are different and have to be treated and studied differently, hence it is why we get different results. for instance, if an archeologist studies two different fossils, do you think that they will get the same results? Each and every individual must be treated and studied as new. Just because there are too many variables to control from one person to the other, does not make it a non science. one can not study jack and jill and expect the same results, just like you can not study two different moons and get the same results. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

What makes it pseudoscience is the fact that psychologists create experiments across the field that cannot be replicated , that's not Science the opposite in fact.

The father of psychology Sigmund Fraud was a , a fraud and an adept con man , most of his " theories" are total bunk now they give out degrees in this nonsense.

maxx

i just explained why thye can not always get the same results across the field. people are all different in many ways and each person has to be studied as a new test. You can not take a giant bag of colored marbles and expect them all to come back as the same color.. I cant study mike who lives in the deep south, and has a different view and understanding of the world that imu in canada and get the same results. they both have different problems, views, their way of thinking is different and so on. even among family members results will be slightly different for every variable changes a bit due to the way they grew up.It is impossible to expect the same results across the board;  can an astronomer study 20 different moons and get the same results? of course not, all they can do is get as close as they can for each is different. Does that astronomy  not a science/ no. it does not make psychology not a science either @Dee

Dee

@maxx

You're not listening.........In recent years, psychology has been struggling with a replication crisis. An attempt to reproduce many of the 100 well-known studies failed to reproduce results. Among social psychology experiments, only 14/55 (25%) replicated; among cognitive psychology experiments, only 21/41 (50%) replicated.[2][3]

After preliminary results were published, some of those people whose studies failed to be reproduced accused the reproduction study authors of bullying.[4] In another study, many published psychology papers have been accused of using flawed statistics and of failure to examine alternative hypotheses.[5]

Since the publication of the replication studies, Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert has argued that the replication studies contained key errors.[6][7]

maxx

no you are not the one listening. how many examples do you need. each person id different, each brain is different; you can not mix apples and oranges and get one or the other. so far, you have refused to accept we use psychology in everyday life, or understand why each study is different. why is that?  let me take jack and jill a married couple who has martial problems. each individual is differnt in the way they think. all studies will be different. all we can do is get as close to each person individually. It is impossible to work it across the board with the same results. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

No,all you're doing is agreeing with me that psychology has a replication crisis,I agree that's what makes it a pseudoscience.

You're calling using our senses psychology,  so everyone is a psychologist that's what you're saying right?

So you admit that no one has the right or wrong solution to Jack and Jill's problems as all studies will be different and you call that Science , seriously?

maxx

no, just because psychology has issues( among all sciences) does not make it a fake science. also i said everyone uses psychology in everyday lives; not that everyone is a psychologist( your making things up now).  also, i never said the problems jack and jill had were not solvable by the psychologist. both jack and jill has to be treated separately and differently to get the results. quit telling me i said things i did not. also you keep claiming that psychology is but sham artists and quacks. while there are some who may get their license off of bubba on the street corner, the majority go through universities and it is these people who have the high standards. I would like you to provide me a link on the percentage of scammers compared to actual psychologists. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

It's pseudoscience because has a replication crisis , Science does not have this problem.



The definition of Psychology according to psychologists is

........

psychology

/sʌɪˈkɒlədʒi/

noun

1. 1.

   the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour
   
   So your latest contention is everyone uses the Scientific study of the humanmind and its functions in their daily assessments of others , that's what you're saying right?

So in the US people likeJack and Jill are treated separately not together ,seriously ? Will 1,000 different psychologists all reach the same conclusions?

I would like you to provide me a link on the percentage of genuine psychologists compared to scammers.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42



I will contend that out of the two of us, I am the one sticking with what science says and will continue to do so.

Yet you totally ignore what the Science says as  you post up sources that totally disagree with your own contentions and are totally unaware of this fact.


 Prior to this post I substantially refuted your misinterpretation of the science of psychology.

No you didn't you posted up an emotional opinion piece void of anything substantive 

 In addition, I also exemplified how that article you posted from the LA Times was a misrepresentation of what psychology is.

Another thing you got wrong as you couldn't demonstrate how the article was wrong , you still can't.


 I have done an abundance of research on this already which was also reflected in the references I cited in my previous response to you; I guess you didn't bother to read that post. I am also getting the impression that you didn't read the OP or any other of my responses. This is reflected in that you appear to be just repeating the same argument instead of actually challenging any points of pertinence.

You don't do " research " you pretend to , I will demonstrate shortly tht yet again I'm correct using your sources to prove you make it up as you go along.

Nonetheless, for the benefit of any future spectators that are interested in what the actual scienctists say I will continue to challenge your assertion here where you bring another article to try and support your contention but ultimately fail to do so. Let's dive in:

You 've challenged nothing all you're doing is crowing what a great researcher you are yet cannot even face the fact that most psychological experiments cannot be replicated 

The characterization of psychology as “quackery masquerading as Science” is a viewpoint rooted in certain criticisms but overlooks the comprehensive and rigorous work that underpins the discipline. It is essential to approach such generalizations with caution and recognize the nuance and diversity within the field.

LOL sure thing, a whole discipline founded more or less on the inane bleatings of the father of Psychology and Ace con man Sigmund Fraud

First and foremost, the link to a report from The Guardian addresses concerns regarding the reproducibility of psychological experiments. While the reproducibility crisis has indeed been a topic of discussion in the scientific community, it's worth noting that it isn't limited to psychology alone. Disciplines like biology, medicine, and even physics have faced similar challenges (Baker, 2016). 

Nice swerve accuse other disciplines of the same flaws and  like magic those flaws dissapper, seriously?

You seem to think saying ( Baker ,2016) is somehow making a case for you , appeals to authorities you havent even read are hardly convincing , I'm still waiting on you to make an actual argument instead of constantly swerving.

The very fact that the psychological community is actively addressing and rectifying these issues testifies to its commitment to scientific rigor (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).

Another baseless claim you have zero proof for how is it "actively" addressing and rectifying these issues?

You just made that up didnt you? Heres the part where I demonstrate clearly you actually read nothing you claim to have read instead you pretend and try to convince others this is the case.

If you even bothered to read Open Science collaboration,  2015 you surely would have read the main contention put forward which was ......

Replication issuse will not salvage the trustworthiness of Psychology,  ouch you just shot yourself in the foot again.

Additionally, characterizing an entire field by the actions or qualifications of a few practitioners is an overgeneralization. In fact, to use an analogy dismissing the entire field of psychology based on a few problematic studies or practitioners is like throwing away an entire basket of apples just because you found a couple of rotten ones. In both cases, you'd be overlooking the majority that are still good and valuable

You want to support pseudoscience go for it , even your own sources rubbish your claims

.While there might be individuals who misuse or misrepresent psychological principles, the majority of psychologists are dedicated professionals who undergo rigorous training. They adhere to ethical standards set by organizations like the American Psychological Association and contribute positively to mental health care, education, business, and other areas. Organizations within the UK that psychology practitioners adhere to incude the British Psychological Society (BPS), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC, Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP), British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP), British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). 

Nonsense, the field is brim full of charlatans and quacks 

Furthermore, the assertion that psychology practitioners are “out to fleece the unwary” seems to stem from misconceptions about the profession. Like any discipline, there will be a minority who might not uphold the highest standards. However, this doesn't undermine the countless therapists, counselors, researchers, and educators who work diligently to help individuals and contribute to our understanding of the human mind and behavior.

Its sadly true the field attracts scammers and quacks.

Lastly, the application and impact of psychological research in real-world settings cannot be overlooked. From therapeutic interventions that improve mental well-being (Hofmann et al., 2012) to organizational practices that enhance workplace efficiency, the tangible benefits of psychology are manifold.

Nonsense,  " workplace efficiency " where do you get this bunk? Oh dear yet another appeal to authority  ( Hofmannet al, 2022) LOL .......et al ....,hahahahahaa.....

In closing, while any scientific field, including psychology, is subject to scrutiny and continuous improvement, it's vital to approach such criticisms with a balanced perspective. The reproducibility issue is a genuine concern, but it doesn't negate the vast body of reliable and beneficial psychological research or the positive impact of professional practitioners in various sectors.

Actually its the reproducibility crisis and it totally undermines the whole field and proves its pseudoscience at best 

P.S.: It's essential to recognize that the presence of a few individuals promoting pseudoscientific ideas doesn't invalidate an entire academic and scientific discipline. Just because personalities, like Deepak Chopra might employ scientific jargon in misleading ways, doesn't mean they represent the principles or rigor of psychology as a whole. Building an argument against a discipline based on such exceptions is both misguided and overly simplistic. It's similar to dismissing the entirety of medicine as pseudoscience simply because of the existence of a few fraudulent practices or unconventional treatments.

Read above again , and at least attempt to read your " research" next time your opinion pieces are just that and you haven't posted up one piece to defend your unfounded assertions , in actual fact your one piece admitted how untrustworthy Psychology was.

@Dee

First and foremost, you really need to calm your ego. It seems like you are more interested in just winning some virtual fight, at all costs than anything else. 

Moreover, discrediting the use of sources without engaging with their content sidesteps the essence of the debate. One of the foundations of academic discourse is the citation of reliable sources, grounding arguments in previously conducted research. By challenging the validity of sources, the counterargument shifts focus from the main claims.

The reproducibility crisis in science is undeniably a challenge. However, its existence across multiple scientific fields suggests it might be more of a methodological or systemic issue rather than one solely afflicting psychology. This doesn't render the entire discipline void; rather, it underscores the need for methodological reforms and improvements. Moreover, psychology's recognition of these issues and active efforts to address them showcases the field's commitment to integrity.

On the topic of historical figures like Sigmund Freud: the field of psychology has seen significant evolution since Freud's time. It's essential to understand that not all of his theories or ideas are emblematic of modern psychology. Every scientific discipline matures and evolves over time, refining its methodologies and perspectives based on new findings. Discrediting an entire discipline based on its early figures is a limiting perspective.

Appeals to authority, when founded on credible, peer-reviewed sources, are not mere name-dropping but are integral to academic discourse. Such references serve to substantiate claims and offer evidence. Disregarding these sources without addressing their content or findings hinders a constructive debate.

The diverse applications of psychology, ranging from clinical settings to organizational behavior, speak to its real-world relevance. There's a vast body of evidence underscoring the positive impacts of psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, in various societal contexts.

The original post aimed to offer a balanced view of psychology, backed by peer-reviewed studies. While every scientific discipline faces its share of criticism and challenges, these critiques should be grounded in an informed and comprehensive understanding, rather than based on broad generalizations or dismissals.

In any academic discussion, it's crucial to approach the topic with an open mind and engage constructively with the ideas presented. Addressing the substance of the argument rather than the individual presenting it fosters a more enriching and informative debate.

Lastly, merely repeating the same arguments to me as you do to others such as maxx and dreamer do not suffice as valid refutations. For one I am not them, nor are my arguments or understanding the same as theirs. Also, continuing to repeat the same contentions without giving any explanation for them also does not hold up to scrutiny. 

FYI, @Dee fallacies are as follows:

1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): Statements like "No, you didn't you posted up an emotional opinion piece void of anything substantive" and "you pretend to" directly attack the individual rather than addressing the argument they made.

2. Straw Man Fallacy: This fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. For instance, "Nice swerve accuse other disciplines of the same flaws and like magic those flaws disappear" is a simplification of the original point made about reproducibility issues being present in various scientific fields.

3. Red Herring: This is when someone introduces irrelevant information into an argument in an attempt to distract from the real issue. The comments on Sigmund Freud, although historically relevant, don't directly relate to the present-day validity and scientific basis of psychology as a discipline.

4. Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam): This fallacy suggests something is true because it hasn't been proven false. For example, "Nonsense, 'workplace efficiency' where do you get this bunk?" suggests that unless you can immediately prove the effectiveness of psychological principles in enhancing workplace efficiency, the concept is false.

5. Cherry Picking/Selective Use of Evidence: When only specific instances are picked to validate a particular position, ignoring a significant portion of related cases. The repeated focus on reproducibility issues, while valid, overlooks the breadth and depth of psychological research and its numerous validated findings.

6. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. For instance, suggesting that the entire field of psychology is full of "charlatans and quacks" based on some issues or problematic figures is an overgeneralization.

7. Appeal to Ridicule: This is an attempt to mock or ridicule an argument rather than addressing its substance. Examples from the counterargument include: "LOL sure thing," and "hahahahahaa."

8. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is used as one of the premises. Stating that psychology is untrustworthy and then using that as evidence to claim it's pseudoscience is circular.

9. False Dilemma: This is when only two choices are presented when more might exist. The argument presents the situation as if psychology is either completely trustworthy or entirely pseudoscientific, without considering the nuanced middle ground where most of the scientific disciplines reside.

Dee

@ZeusAres42



First and foremost, you really need to calm your ego. It seems like you are more interested in just winning some virtual fight, at all costs than anything else. 

My ego is just fine , on the other hand accusing me of needing to calm my ego is advice i feel you should be taking your ego is out of control and has you thinking you're some sort of expert in things scientific.

Moreover, discrediting the use of sources without engaging with their content sidesteps the essence of the debate

I used your one source against you , the one you never even read that totally supports my contentions 

. One of the foundations of academic discourse is the citation of reliable sources, grounding arguments in previously conducted research. By challenging the validity of sources, the counterargument shifts focus from the main claims.

Swerving again , your own piece you never read supports my stance.

The reproducibility crisis in science is undeniably a challenge. However, its existence across multiple scientific fields suggests it might be more of a methodological or systemic issue rather than one solely afflicting psychology.

Nonsense, there are no empirical truths in psychology , there is no truth seeking in the field of psychology and truth seeking is fundamental to good Science.

 This doesn't render the entire discipline void; rather, it underscores the need for methodological reforms and improvements. Moreover, psychology's recognition of these issues and active efforts to address them showcases the field's commitment to integrity.

What efforts are they as a body making?

On the topic of historical figures like Sigmund Freud: the field of psychology has seen significant evolution since Freud's time. It's essential to understand that not all of his theories or ideas are emblematic of modern psychology. Every scientific discipline matures and evolves over time, refining its methodologies and perspectives based on new findings. Discrediting an entire discipline based on its early figures is a limiting perspective.

Again another misrepresentation of my position , i can discredit it using many modern day eamples and have done so already.

Appeals to authority, when founded on credible, peer-reviewed sources, are not mere name-dropping but are integral to academic discourse. Such references serve to substantiate claims and offer evidence. Disregarding these sources without addressing their content or findings hinders a constructive debate.

You gave no content just ( Hofman et all 2016) seriously thats your " academic discourse" seriously?

The diverse applications of psychology, ranging from clinical settings to organizational behavior, speak to its real-world relevance. There's a vast body of evidence underscoring the positive impacts of psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, in various societal contexts.

CBT is loaded  with flaws you didn't know this?

The original post aimed to offer a balanced view of psychology, backed by peer-reviewed studies. While every scientific discipline faces its share of criticism and challenges, these critiques should be grounded in an informed and comprehensive understanding, rather than based on broad generalizations or dismissals.

i suggest you try that approach sometime.

In any academic discussion, it's crucial to approach the topic with an open mind and engage constructively with the ideas presented. Addressing the substance of the argument rather than the individual presenting it fosters a more enriching and informative debate.

It would sure help if you even attemted to read your own ( one source) that totally agreed with my position.

Lastly, merely repeating the same arguments to me as you do to others such as maxx and dreamer do not suffice as valid refutations. For one I am not them, nor are my arguments or understanding the same as theirs. Also, continuing to repeat the same contentions without giving any explanation for them also does not hold up to scrutiny. 

All you're doing is preaching on how debate should take place in an attempt to avoid admitting your one supporting piece agreed with my postion and rubbished yours, all my contentions I backed up on the other hand  you actually think that saying ( Hofman et al 2016 ) is an argument.

FYI, @Dee fallacies are as follows:

Zeus bought a big book on fallacies and now accuses everyone of the fallacies he's guilty of

1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): Statements like "No, you didn't you posted up an emotional opinion piece void of anything substantive" and "you pretend to" directly attack the individual rather than addressing the argument they made.

2. It's not a fallacy to point out how emotional you are , I also addressed your one argument where I used your supporting piece ( you never even read ) against you 

3. Straw Man Fallacy: This fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. For instance, "Nice swerve accuse other disciplines of the same flaws and like magic those flaws disappear" is a simplification of the original point made about reproducibility issues being present in various scientific fields.

4. Nonsense,  you made no argument you just gave your opinion and attempted to bluster your way through by posting a piece younever read 

5. Red Herring: This is when someone introduces irrelevant information into an argument in an attempt to distract from the real issue. The comments on Sigmund Freud, although historically relevant, don't directly relate to the present-day validity and scientific basis of psychology as a discipline.

Nonsense,  Fraudian therapy is still a thing and is used to this day your ignorance on the field you claim you be familiar with is appalling 

You actually didn't know people are still being  duped by Fraudian therapists ,seriously? 


Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam): This fallacy suggests something is true because it hasn't been proven false. For example, "Nonsense, 'workplace efficiency' where do you get this bunk?" suggests that unless you can immediately prove the effectiveness of psychological principles in enhancing workplace efficiency, the concept is false.

Nonsense , I asked you a question you cannot answer and you play the victim, wow!

1. Cherry Picking/Selective Use of Evidence: When only specific instances are picked to validate a particular position, ignoring a significant portion of related cases. The repeated focus on reproducibility issues, while valid, overlooks the breadth and depth of psychological research and its numerous validated findings.

2. Nonsense , you'd no valid answers so understandably you dodge and swerve.

3. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. For instance, suggesting that the entire field of psychology is full of "charlatans and quacks" based on some issues or problematic figures is an overgeneralization.

4. My conclusions are based on more than that , your deliberate misrepresentation fails yet again

5. Appeal to Ridicule: This is an attempt to mock or ridicule an argument rather than addressing its substance. Examples from the counterargument include: "LOL sure thing," and "hahahahahaa."

That's a reasonable response to nonsense

1. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is used as one of the premises. Stating that psychology is untrustworthy and then using that as evidence to claim it's pseudoscience is circular.

But I didn't do that I used your piece to prove my point and you're still smarting......ouch 

1. False Dilemma: This is when only two choices are presented when more might exist. The argument presents the situation as if psychology is either completely trustworthy or entirely pseudoscientific, without considering the nuanced middle ground where most of the scientific disciplines reside.

You're really upset I used your best supporting piece( you never read) against you . You should learn some humility and take your beatings like a man.

maxx

you posted the definition yourself. the "scientific" study of the human mind. according to various sites 100,00 psychologist in th e states. I find no sites on the amount of scammers. why? the percentage has to be low. will 1000 psychologists come to the same conclusion. I believe that they will all understand the problem. The only difference would be different treatment. conclusions are very easy to come by. many time the patient will tell you. it is helping them cope that each psychologist may employ differently. You allso made several silly statements to zeus; and i point out one. You said there is no truth seeking in psychology. i suggest you back that up or retract it. also like you told zeus, you said you asked many questions with no answer, aside from him actually answering your questions, you are using a double standard by not answering other questions.I also explained many time and in many ways how replication in psychology is useless yet you keep using it as your criteria to say it is not a science. I have also pointed out and provide a link which you did not read, that shows how psychology follows the same steps as other sciences. zweus is correct. you are not debating. you simply are jumping up and down, clapping your little hands in glee thinking what you say means something. read the link!!  @Dee












@Dee

Dee

@maxx


I read half way through your pile of nonsense and couldn't continue, you can now go back to your buddy and have your little circle jerk off.

Everything you say is a contradiction of your previous post, hey why not post your debate up.for a tenth time seeing as you're so obsessed with pseudoscience?

ZeusAres42

@Dee

So nothing of any substance or pertinence then? Just repeated assertions right with no backing? How about we stop mucking around and do this formally? Now considering your assurance regarding your own expertise within the science domain I trust this should be easy for you. I mean you have mastered reading and comprehending multiple peer-reviewed studies in less than 24 hours. I have to say I am impressed; you have managed to do something that those academics haven't.   

Then again, I guess they don't call it the Dunning-Kruger effect for no reason. Here's a toast to the self-educated gentleman:      


I look forward to you kicking my A-hole in formal.  

Dee

@ZeusAres42

So nothing of any substance or pertinence then?

From you no , from me plenty.
From the very start I made one statement which was .....
,  The main flaw of Psychology as a Science is its inability to make accurate predictions....

Thats a factual statement and remains so its one of psychologys many flaws..

Just repeated assertions right with no backing?

Every statement I've made I backed up by using links , you provided only one source which agreed totally with my assessment , upi never even checked your own source.

How about we stop mucking around and do this formally?

Why? All you've done so far is attempted to pretend you've expertise in the field by bluffing and spoofing  saying ( Hofmaner et ,al 2001) , ( Gibson 2012) etc ,etc

Your owm citation I looked up myself ( no live link provided) it  disagreed with your totally unfounded assertions


 considering your assurance regarding your own expertise within the science domain I trust this should be easy for you. 

Ahh got you the intellectual bully boy tactic as only Science experts are allowed comment on your posts, that's pretty pathetic but typical.

 mean you have mastered reading and comprehending multiple peer-reviewed studies in less than 24 hours.

Again another pretty lame attempt at intellectual bullying by you claiming only those adept at reading peer reviewed studies are entitled to comment on your posts, pretty tragic considering you used to accuse a fellow member of this self same tactic.

 I have to say I am impressed; you have managed to do something that those academics haven't.   

I never claimed any such thing but to come up with the childish excuse that only academics are entitled to comment on your childish opinion pieces is ridiculouw

Then again, I guess they don't call it the Dunning-Kruger effect for no reason.

There's a reason they call it that , I think you fit the part nicely as every debate your tactic is the same as in claim you're a top notch researcher and  attempt to brow beat and bully others  until you post a source up that you never even read and get called on it , why sulk about it admit your error and accept your beating.

 Here's a toast to the self-educated gentleman:

Actually ,I cannot take the credit for my eduction but hey thanks. Must remember only academics allowed debate you.

You and Maxx related by any chance you both seem as confused as the other.

Why you attempt to challenge me to a debate after I've just thrashed you in is beyond me , it seems you want the other two active members and friends of yours  to take part in a Zeus  mutual back slapping ego bolstering campaign to make you feel good again.

You were beaten accept it and move on , try to learn from your defeats and growth may follow.

maxx

you know, this is why you are so .  all you can do is resort  to insults; you always have to start trouble.You refuse to debate properly; you refuse tpo back up your own statements, refuse to accept evidence. go to hell.  what a pile of refuse.  go play with yourself . i have had as well as most of us, had some really decent quality debates; then you decided to come back, stir up trouble with your juvenile attitude. go back to the other debate site that you were kicked off of; maybe theyll take you back.  no one wants you here.  you are as bad as mickey ever was.   @Dee

Dee

@maxx

WOW ? No valid response from Mad Maxx as usual you pseudoscience guys are all the same

Your main contention is a1,000 psychologists could treat a couple and each ones diagnosis is correct as each has a scrap of paper saying "psychologist" ,that in you're insane brain is "cutting edge Science" .....WOW