"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"

[AcademicPistol]

You have me nailed to the wall.

[worm]

The concept of the atom was around long before they discovered something that fit the concept. You have such a warped, layman understanding of the schools of thought pertaining to the sciences.

The only reason we have the concept of chemistry is because differences were observed in how certain things behaved. Those certain things are called chemicals and the study of how they behave is called chemistry. In exactly the same way, the concept of psychology was brought about because of differences that were observed in the behaviour of certain people. Those certain people are called psyches and the study of how they behave is called psychology. The reason we call them psyches and not people, is because unlike chemistry, people are variable. This variable is the psyche. And it is just as testable as anything physical. It has certain factors, like chemicals, that when observed always behave in the same way.

[eFestivals]

The ... <snip> ... anything.

tortology. It's the best you're managing.

[kaosmark2]

whoaaaa!!! It's waaaay more than that!!

Psychology can, at best, only ever be as good as the language that's used for it. And our use of language is almost as dark-age as psychology is.

Physical sciences don't suffer from the same problem, cos no matter how good or bad the language, there's still a force acting on an object, and nothing of that is solely dependent on language for an understanding of it.

Psychology only has language. While there might still be actions and reactions, they're ultimately only able to be internalised.

[worm]

Variance that you cannot eliminate as the cause for an effect. And yes, it's a social science. Sciences are based upon the concept of proof, social sciences are based on theory. What social scientists consider 'true' and 'accepted' and 'definite', scientists consider 'a popular theory still unproven'. Psychology, like other social sciences, cannot prove a theory. It can't even disprove one. That's the difference.

[kaosmark2]

The science aspect is indifferent to all of this. Science is used to prove a theory about an actuality. Addiction is a psychological actuality, because it is based upon observable behaviour. Things falling to the ground is a physical actuality, because it's based upon an observable behaviour. Gravity is the theory that is tested. Dependency is the theory that is tested. Gravity holds under every scientific test going. Dependency holds under every scientific test going. There is no difference. They are both theories based upon an abstract logos that have not been nulled by science. Therefore, they are scientifically sound theories. It is possible that they may be proven otherwise by science if something should change.

[worm]

The difference is that dependency can't eliminate other variables. For instance, gravity can be tested in a vacuum, to eliminate the potential of pressure. You can't do the equivalent with dependency. "Not yet disproven" isn't the same as "Not yet disproven with all other potential variables tested and accounted for".

Edited August 16, 2012 by worm

[kaosmark2]

The conditions of dependence are a different matter all together, whereas the conditions of gravity are stable.

[eFestivals]

And that's because the "conditions of dependence" are yet to be anything like accurately defined.

But yet further ideas are built off that inaccurately defined idea, meaning those further ideas suffer even worse accuracy problems.

And that, in a nutshell, is where psychological ideas are. They're *ALL* built on the flimiest of things, still in the dark ages, and so miles away from what is understood to be science in modern terms. A solid base is needed to build up from, in just the way that so much of modern science is built on Newton getting the theory of gravity accurate (or at least, accurate enough to not matter for his slight error for non-terrestial things).

And it's held back from ever reaching what is science in modern terms because nutters like worm are so wedded to those flakey ideas as tho they are actually accurate.

Edited August 17, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

And that's because the "conditions of dependence" are yet to be anything like accurately defined.

Edited August 17, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Exactly.

[worm]

are you saying there's no such thing as dependancy or addiciton?

[worm]

I said it ages ago, but he reminds me of a dog barking at the moon thinking that in doing so he's conquered it.

[feral chile]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html

A revolution is taking place in the world of human psychology¹. Before the revolution, psychology relied on untested, sometimes untestable assumptions about an abstraction called the mind, and science had no important role. After the revolution, there will be a new science where psychology now stands.

In a recent Scientific American article entitled "Faulty Circuits"², Thomas Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), describes recent efforts to bring an evidence-based, scientific perspective to the diagnosis and treatment of psychological ailments. Insel says, "From the scientific standpoint, it is difficult to find a precedent in medicine for what is beginning to happen in psychiatry. The intellectual basis of this field is shifting from one discipline, based on subjective 'mental' phenomena, to another, neuroscience. Indeed, today’s developing science-based understanding of mental illness very likely will revolutionize prevention and treatment and bring real and lasting relief to millions of people worldwide."

[feral chile]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html

A revolution is taking place in the world of human psychology¹. Before the revolution, psychology relied on untested, sometimes untestable assumptions about an abstraction called the mind, and science had no important role. After the revolution, there will be a new science where psychology now stands.

In a recent Scientific American article entitled "Faulty Circuits"², Thomas Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), describes recent efforts to bring an evidence-based, scientific perspective to the diagnosis and treatment of psychological ailments. Insel says, "From the scientific standpoint, it is difficult to find a precedent in medicine for what is beginning to happen in psychiatry. The intellectual basis of this field is shifting from one discipline, based on subjective 'mental' phenomena, to another, neuroscience. Indeed, today’s developing science-based understanding of mental illness very likely will revolutionize prevention and treatment and bring real and lasting relief to millions of people worldwide."

[worm]

Load of toss feral. The medical model is presently being irradicated. The guy, probably sponsored by the usual suspects, is spouting the same old rhetoric.

'Mental illness' is the give away. 'Diagnosis', 'evidence based', 'science', blah blah blah. All of these things are used in the current models of psychology anyway. It's just someone trying to enforce the medical model, probably because they have a political and financial investment. You hear it all the time.

It would be a regression, not revolution.

Edited August 17, 2012 by worm

[feral chile]

Load of toss feral. The medical model is presently being irradicated. The guy, probably sponsored by the usual suspects, is spouting the same old rhetoric.

'Mental illness' is the give away. 'Diagnosis', 'evidence based', 'science', blah blah blah. All of these things are used in the current models of psychology anyway. It's just someone trying to enforce the medical model, probably because they have a political and financial investment. You hear it all the time.

It would be a regression, not revolution.

[worm]

My take on the mind/brain problem is this. As a materialist, I believe mental conditions are brain conditions. So science might one day establish what's going on in the brain. But I also think that this won't eliminate the mind. Because, as a materialist, I believe that only the correct stimulus will produce the desired result. Medication mimics the brain's chemical responses to stimuli. I would imagine the brain's set up to look for external reasons for the state it's in, so counselling could still be effective, because it provides a more natural change in brain chemistry (beliefs and emotions) than a pill could manage.

I don't know if I've explained that well. It's just that, I believe what we call the mind is really brain function. But if it is, then the most effective method to change brain function/chemistry might be by using methods the brain's wired up to react with ie social interaction and the environment.

[feral chile]

That's fair enough. I could take it apart, but I won't. It wouldn't change your mind (sorry brain fucntion) anyway. But what is important and what I will say is this, it's because of this prejudice that you've warmed to that rubbish you posted.

[worm]

Well, as you know, I have a penchant for functional theories such as behaviourism, so I'm always going to be drawn towards an environmental, objective explanation rather than an internal, subjective one. The dilemma is providing an objective account of a subjective condition - I'm not in favour of denying inner life.

[feral chile]

The problem is pretty clear then. You're insistence on a subjective/ objective dichotomy. Modern psychology evolved from overcoming this. Experience may be subjective to the observer, but their accounts aren't.

[worm]

As an aside, here's a nice little example of why philosophy is more important than science.......

There is the idea that there is a white cat in a dark room. Science would have us turn on the light to see if it is white or not. Whereas philosophy would suggest that in darkness, all cats are black. So science tells us that the cat is white, whereas philosophy tells us that it depends on the light.

What is fact without wisdom?

Edited August 17, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

The conitions of dependence don't need to be accurately defined for them to be verified.

for psychology, very true.

Nothing is accurately defined (outside of the self-satisfying), and nothing is accurately verified.

The proof is within the lines drawn around what is dependence.

If you can't see that you've no need to reply and tell me it's wrong, because if you're not able to see that you're not in the position to know it's wrong.

[eFestivals]

He's saying a number of things.

1) That he doesn't understand how science works

2) That he doesn't understand how logos (schools of thought) work

3) That he doesn't understand that the physical universe is an abstract concept in the exact same way as the psyche is

4) That he has an irrational hatred of psychology

5) That he cannot and will not see his own ironies and contradictions

6) That all he can do is spout meaningless and self satisfying rhetoric about dark ages and such like, the type of which the tabloids would be ashamed

That's what he's saying Tony. Don't look for a debate or a point. Don't bother looking for reason. It's not there.

1. wrong

2. wrong

3. wrong

4. wrong

5. wrong

6. wrong

Glad we've cleared that up.

[eFestivals]

are you saying there's no such thing as dependancy or addiciton?

Nope, I'm saying that psychology is able to invent and define these ideas, but the definition of any idea is based wholely within human prejudices and not anything of externally verifiable substance.

Physical sciences have a solid replicable basis for (nearly) all of the ideas built on top of its base. That solid replicable basis for each building block verifies the base as correct. Until it got that solid base, ideas were built up only to later get trashed via other different ideas - which is precisely the position of psychology today.

Aside from using the self-sustaining or toutology, psychology has nothing similar to the solid base of physical sciences. Each more-complex idea is known to be seriously flawed, but because there's no other workable idea for the more-complex that more-complex idea is clung to as accurate, and causes the likes of worm to stand behind that dogma and avoid scientific analysis of it.

Any scientific analysis of a more-complex psychological idea has it fall down (because it's shown as not consistent), and its supporting ideas often fall down with it. And if it is acknowledged as falling down then worm has nothing for all he's invested in these ideas, just as the more formal adherees get to lose the power they've acquired by being thought of as experts.

So yes, I think there's such things as dependency and addiction, but that psychology has little idea of what they really are, how they work, and what is *really* included within those things (rather than 'what is said to be included within those things'). After all, psychology cannot prove where the lines are drawn around these things, so when the likes of worm starts saying there is the proof he turns an attempt at an application of scientific methodology onto the mind into nothing more than hoodoo.