|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Psychology All Bunk? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm glad things aren't that simple, if they were it would deprive me of a fascinating field of study! I appreciate your viewpoint. I for one am glad it's not that complicated, or else scientists would be so busy trying to figure out how to do it that they could never get around to actually doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ElliPhant Inactive Member |
luckily that is not a job for scientists. scientists do what they do and that is GOOD. it's us philosphers of science who get to sit around thinking while scientists do what they do best - science (whatever the heck it is).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Science as most of us seem to understand it, is not so much a point as a process. It is a collection of statements that can be used to explain observed facts and to make useful and accurate predictions about future observations. At any given moment in time, the collection of statements that best describes the observations makes up the body of knowledge that we call SCIENCE. For example, for over a thousnad years, Ptolemy's veiws of the universe served well. They explained what was seen and could be used to make predictions of future events that were later verified. It was Good Science. Only later, when new obeservations were made that could not fit within the set of statements in use, was there any need to change things. That did not make Ptolemy's system BAD, only incorrect. Psychology today is similar. It is a set of statements, based on observations, that explain what is seen and can be used to make predictions about future events and observations. It is good science. There is every likelyhood, that as more is learned, as more observations are made, we will find a situation where the current set of statements will be proven insufficient and some new set of statements that more accurately explains observations will be developed. But to say that Psychology today is bunk would be tantamount to saying that Ptolemy was bunk. It wasn't. It was a well reasoned scientific system that worked well within the observations of the day. Understanding human behavior can be a joint affort of psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists and clinical counseling. The author of this topic has long since disappeared from EvC, but his basic question attempts to ask if Psychology is a legitimate science.
crashfrog writes: I would offer linguistics as a potential sub-field of psychology, and I don't believe that anyone would impugn linguistics reputation as a science... Lets ask Jon about this one. How does linguistics help us to understand human behavior?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Lets ask Jon about this one. How does linguistics help us to understand human behavior? There are more fields in linguistics than one. And depending on your definition of 'human behavior', various studies in linguistics can offer different understandings of that behavior. But I am not sure that really addresses what you quoted from Crash. Astronomy and meteorology, for example, are both agreed to be solid science... neither offer anything in the way of understanding human behavior. So let's deal with what Crash actually was talking about: Whether linguistics is a real science or not. The answer, once again, depends on what areas of linguistics you are talking about. Measuring sound waves is clearly a very 'hard-science' activity. Getting fat-paid by MIT to invent nonsense 'theories' about goofy things called Universal Grammar, on the other hand, is as far from science as dogs taking shits. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Sigh.
Of course Psychology is a science: it follows the scientific method.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Crashfrog writes: One thing I dont like is how criminals get off the hook using the insanity defense. One more way to look at the scientific method would be to answer the question "assuming that there's an objective reality that we all share, what's the best way to come to an agreement about how it works?" Recently, in Colorado, we had a man go and enter a school and shoot two kids. They tackled him before he could do anything else, but he recently got off after doing barely a year...due to originally being judged insane. Because Eastwood was found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of attempted first-degree murder, assault and child abuse, he was taken to the state mental hospital after the sentencing.
Full story here. Insane or not, this man is a potential danger to society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
That's a problem for the legal system. I think the criminally cannot be rehabilitated so they should be locked up forever. You are never going to be safe around someone with narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Somebody dredged up a very old thread
Phat writes:
I am inclined to think that it is mostly the other way around. That is, a better understanding of human behavior could lead to better ways of doing linguistics.How does linguistics help us to understand human behavior? Traditionally, linguistics was studied in the field where the relation of language to human behavior was considered important. As long as it is studied that way, linguistics and a study of human behavior can go together and support one another. If, instead, linguistics is studied from an intelligent design stance, then you end up with a lot of dubious language theory leading to dubious ideas about psychology. (Yes, I am referring to Chomskian linguistics).Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
One thing I dont like is how criminals get off the hook using the insanity defense. Recently, in Colorado, we had a man go and enter a school and shoot two kids. They tackled him before he could do anything else, but he recently got off after doing barely a year...due to originally being judged insane. I don;t think you comprehend the nature of mental illness, Phat. And you seem to be more swayed by the punishment aspect of the justice system than rehabilitation or the protection of society. Mental illness can completely alter a person;s personality...and in many cases medication can resolve the problem. Quite seriously, a person who can be dangerous when mentally ill can, through medication and therapy, not be dangerous at all. If a person commits a crime while mentally ill, are they just as responsible for that crime as if they had made the decision while fully cognizant of the act and its consequences? I certainly don;t think so - they literally aren't thinking the way a normal human being would...and people can't choose to become mentally ill. Do you know anyone with a mental illness, Phat? Statistically speaking, you've likely met at least a couple people who were schizophrenic - and never even knew, because medication allows them to live normal lives. I have some relatives and other loved ones with a variety of mental illness, most dealing with severe clinical depression or multiple flavors of severe anxiety disorder. The difference between their behavior and personality before and after medication is staggering. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The difference between their behavior and personality before and after medication is staggering. Yup. State and trait are very importantly different. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
You make it seem as if he got off scott free.
From your link.
quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think that Phat means that the perp is not held ethically accountable, if considered insane for their crimes.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I do not see that. Lets see what Phat has to say.
I think indefinite stay is a mental hospital is being held ethically accountable.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
indefinite, yes. Im just mad that the guy was let out...what if he stops taking his meds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
According to the article(and common sense) he was not let out. He is indefinitely(read long term) confined to a mental hospital. Mental hospitals for people like this are not like your local hospital. They are quite secure and very prison like.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024