Is psychology a fake science?

[King Chaos]

why putting together two things that have nothing to do with each other and calling it a question? aside from the fact that i doubt anyone here thinks psychology "explains it all" (all what, by the way? reality? the world? the human mind?), i doubt psychology has anything to do with theories about the existence of alien life-forms. it seems you keep deluding yourself into believing that there are two sides of some big fence, with people who explain irrational phenomena by way of psychology, and others who don't. even though i'm not versed in psychology either, i believe that it would express the prudent opinion that there is something curious about your perception if you see something that is not there. whether ufos, hydras, or mauve elephants on a bike are actually there or not, is a completely different kettle of fish. for the sake of this discussion, you should stop trying to bend concepts in a way that makes them collide just because you have a point to prove.

I have no point to prove, I just want to talk . My agenda here goes no further than just spicing this place up a tad. If you see some other agenda, then I'm scared... scared of how radically wrong even the smartest people can be.
I was not being literal with the "Explains it all" phrase. Sorry to waste your time buddy. It was very light hearted, perhaps in a distant way even making fun of myself a little. I can see why you'd want to hack me down for it though, and if I did think psychology and not psychology was all life is p wtf) then I'd be suitably owned right now.
Is it your mission to put a huge stamp on things in your replies?

I'm still interested to know however, despite the big stamp, if my good friends Siren or Tal, saw a UfO, would they assume first and foremost it was their minds playing tricks on them?

 

[hyena]

demonstration, or proving something through experiments, is the basis of the scientific method. as long as a discipline accepts and applies that method, it can be considered a science. a budding science, if the proven theories about it are few and far between, but still not opinion, superstition, faith, personal taste.

let me be a bit more specific here - psychology is like economics, no two identical experiments may exist so the outcome's probabilistic (no possibility of a repeated experiment = no certain result). this, of course, just defines different types of science.

 

[rahvin]

Is it your mission to put a huge stamp on things in your replies?

it is my mission to understand the topic of a discussion. your original question apparently needed about a billion substitutions of words to be understood the way you intended it. if you mean something else, be clear. backing off trying to make others come across as the bad guys 'cause they "put stamps" on your words might spice this place up, but probably not the way you want to.

I'm still interested to know however, despite the big stamp, if my good friends Siren or Tal, saw a UfO, would they assume first and foremost it was their minds playing tricks on them?

although not belonging to the category, i venture a reply: i would assume first and foremost that the explanation for what i saw was different. then i would assume second and secondmost that i saw an unexplained phenomenon. then i would assume last and lastmost that i hallucinated it, which might have nothing to do with being insane and everything to do with being tired or stressed

 

[rahvin]

let me be a bit more specific here - psychology is like economics, no two identical experiments may exist so the outcome's probabilistic (no possibility of a repeated experiment = no certain result). this, of course, just defines different types of science.

maybe an exact/non-exact science? or does that have to do with postulating absolutes?

 

[King Chaos]

it is my mission to understand the topic of a discussion. your original question apparently needed about a billion substitutions of words to be understood the way you intended it. if you mean something else, be clear. backing off trying to make others come across as the bad guys 'cause they "put stamps" on your words might spice this place up, but probably not the way you want to.

words which formulated the same thing. "Would you assume you're mind was playing tricks on you", or more to the point/blunter, "Would you think 'I'm insane'". Unless you're going to get pedantic and start saying 'Mind playing tricks' and 'insanity', arn't the same thing, assuming these are the words you're shockingly concerned with, stop over analysing. I asked the same question in the original discussion I had, and people didn't go nuts because I said "insane", they knew what I meant by it (disbelief of what they saw, assuming instantly it couldn't be real and it's their own dillusion). Fair point though, I apologise for not articulating myself in a more clear way.

although not belonging to the category, i venture a reply: i would assume first and foremost that the explanation for what i saw was different. then i would assume second and secondmost that i saw an unexplained phenomenon. then i would assume last and lastmost that i hallucinated it, which might have nothing to do with being insane and everything to do with being tired or stressed

That sounds very similar to how I'd feel. It's exactly what happened when I saw a demon. Although now-a-days I believe it was there... mainly because I didn't like people telling me it wasn't, and it was my eyes playing tricks on me, when initially even if the event is blurry, I do remember accepting it could have been nothing else but a demon, watching me get into my PJs.

 

[rahvin]

words which formulated the same thing. "Would you assume you're mind was playing tricks on you", or more to the point/blunter, "Would you think 'I'm insane'". Unless you're going to get pedantic and start saying 'Mind playing tricks' and 'insanity', arn't the same thing, assuming these are the words you're shockingly concerned with, stop over analysing.

the whole sentence, in my opinion, is unclear. i have no problem with "i'm insane" versus "my mind is playing tricks". but, see, you start by saying "if you saw a ufo". you put this in relation with psychology, you seem to mean "even if you actually saw one, your science of choice wouldn't let you believe you did". that's what makes me think you do have an agenda of sorts, i.e. materialistic beliefs get in the way of one's open-mindedness. i wanted to clarify that if we assume the ufo *is* actually there, psychology or math or physics have no beef with saying so, beacuse, well, it's there. that people would doubt themselves when faced with the possibility of something unheard of - i'm not saying paranormal, though, as there is nothing inherently paranormal in alien life-forms, as far as we know - is something you can't directly connect with psychology. i don't think that discipline in itself commands you to think you're hallucinating everything that is highly unlikely. i'm sorry if i jumped at you for no reason, though. i didn't mean to make it so harsh. it's just that at times you do seem to persistently home in on a few ideas that do not directly connect to the topic.
i know you do believe you've seen what you've seen, and i don't think i have ever made fun of you or tried to "prove" you wrong, even though i'm convinced that your mind was playing tricks on you, for one out of many possible reasons. psychology is, likewise, not out to get you for your convictions and beliefs. if you picture your average psycologist or psychiatrist as someone who would try to persuade you that you're mistaken, you've got the wrong idea. your experience was strictly non-factual: it can't be tested and reproduced in a lab experiment. it cannot be the object of an investigation in itself. if it has any bearings on your current life or state of mind, those might be addressed by therapy, should you ever need to undergo any, but that's about it. in case you're doing so, do not stigmatize psychology only because it addresses hallucinations alongside other situations of the human psyche.

 

[Misanthrope]

and what better proof do you need than that many of its practices do have some good effect on many people?
don't forget that medicine is based a lot (and that's how it started) on experience.

For convenience? Thats ok but for science thats not ok since its very rigid. Psychiatry is good at diagnose and enjoys reasonable success at theating the symptoms but the reason i asked for actual studies and details is because i never heard of succesfully determinating the causes of several mental illness and i always hear how many experts disagree. If there are no absolutes then theories are not proven beyond doubt.

But again if someone knows any absolutes about the exact causes ( either physical or mental ) of a mental illness that psychiatry let me know.

 

[S4R]

Now can they cure anyone? I dont think ive heard about studies that are conclusive enough to think so. Doesnt means their effords are futile however: given the nature of the field understanding is needed before we can threat the illness in this case.

Psychologists have never claimed to cure people. Treatment is the opportune word.

Yes, in some cases, and in some cases it becomes a clear medical element. Still, there are some symptoms that I'm sure different psychologists would observe and give an opposing thesis for the behaviour. I remember vaguely from my couple of weeks of studying psychology p alrighty, im not versed in this, but fuck off yeah?) That every hypothesis and conclusion we studied was directly contradicted by another psychologist who we inturn had to study. If I murdered animals, and bathed in their blood, I'm sure psychologists could observe me and each come up with a different reason why I'm like that, and no doubt some would neglect their peers psychological readings. The point? However smart they make themselves sound with all there mind mapping modeling shite, they are rarely specific, and to be specific you'd probably have to write a book about the answer, covering all the bases in-so-far-as not leaving holes for evaluation in the study and all the causes.

You're asking psychologists have the same burden of proof as geologists who can tell us the elements that make-up a particular rock. Since reputable psychology has never claimed to have unconditional proof, your demand is unfair. There is simply too much variation and uncontrollable variables to do what amounts to placing all humans in an automaton categorization.

 

[Taliesin]

the reason i asked for actual studies and details is because i never heard of succesfully determinating the causes of several mental illness and i always hear how many experts disagree. If there are no absolutes then theories are not proven beyond doubt.

Well, the cause for clinic depression for example seems to be imbalances in the neurosystem in the brain, if I remember right, a substance called melatonin is blocking certain receptors which causes an imbalance between adrenaline and noradrenaline. But as you can see, it's pretty difficult to research stuff inside a living brain, so if I understood you correctly, that might answer your question.

 

[Misanthrope]

Well, the cause for clinic depression for example seems to be imbalances in the neurosystem in the brain, if I remember right, a substance called melatonin is blocking certain receptors which causes an imbalance between adrenaline and noradrenaline. But as you can see, it's pretty difficult to research stuff inside a living brain, so if I understood you correctly, that might answer your question.

Not to be picky but that would be the diagnosis, the behavior of the clinically depressed person would be the symptoms and the cause would be exactly what causes the imbalance in the neurosystem.

What i was going for is exactly what S4R said there never have been such claims. The fact that other areas of medicine do have claims like that makes psychiatry not something exact and without reasonable doubt. The nature of psychiatry and what would involve ( like you said doing research inside a living brain is pretty much far away from practical ) however makes its results acceptable. So the fact that Psychiatry is not strictly a science doesnt takes away any merit, specially given the nature of the Medicine field and the personal interest we have in it that urges solutions as opposed to carefull strictly scientific process that would be unacceptable moraly ( unless vivisection of human beings is acceptable to you in which case more power to you ).

 

[Taliesin]

Well I guess that would be like asking a mathematician about the cause of numbers, or a physician about the cause of particles or gravity.. they just are, it's not too important why.

There are unproven theories in all kinds of sciences, whether it be maths or physics, there are always theories that still need to be prooven. Just because the share of unprooven theories is bigger in psychology doesnt make it anything less of a science imo.

 

[Misanthrope]

Well perhaps i misinterpretated your example or didnt make myself clear: What i mean is that other areas of medicine are more accurate and psychiatry diagnoses and deals with the sympthoms but other areas enjoying greater understanding can prevent things or discern the causes of some medical problems were many areas of psychiatry ( again as far as i understand ) cannot say what exactly causes mental illness, like people argue to whenever schizophrenia is an hereditary dissease or not, or if certain experiences ( specially traumatic ) and enviromental reasons of the person can be viewed as the cause: Since it is not clear to which extent the Personality of the individual is hereditary and to which extent is directly influenced by enviroment is hard to discern the cause of personality disorders too.

 

[Taliesin]

But again, does it matter? Does it matter anymore than the "cause" of numbers or particles?
It doesnt change much whether the disease is heridetary or triggered by some events, you cant change neither and neither is important for the therapy

 

[Misanthrope]

It doesnt matters if the disease is hereditary but it does matter if it is not since we could narrow down what enviromental factors contribute to cause the problems and we could avoid them. Under your reasoning we wouldnt have invented vaccines since we could just cure the sympthoms anyway. Preventive medicine is important too.

So while i dont discredit psychiatry i dont pretend it doesnt has a long way to go and thats positive because it would eventually improve psychiatry.

 

[Taliesin]

But how would you avoid the causes? You cant really do anything to keep someone from doing drugs, or to shelter someone from traumatic events such as one of your parents or friends dying, or your dad beating you up or whatever. It might help to know these things to make the diagnose, that would be a valid point, but other than that, I dont get what you're after

 

[Misanthrope]

But how would you avoid the causes? You cant really do anything to keep someone from doing drugs, or to shelter someone from traumatic events such as one of your parents or friends dying, or your dad beating you up or whatever. It might help to know these things to make the diagnose, that would be a valid point, but other than that, I dont get what you're after

Imagine you have cancer and you go to the doctor telling him your back hurts and he just keeps giving you medicine for the pain. Knowing the nature of the disease, how it works and why can only help us come up with better solutions than just drugging people out of their mind or provide temporal useless relief through therapy.

So how can i know how to threat a dissease if im not even sure of the causes? More important how can i tell you a solution to a problem i dont completly understand? Since when do you need to justify research by providing the answers first?

 

[Taliesin]

Oh.. THAT's what you mean.. well, that's what therapy has been doing for nearly a century now. Sometimes I guess Im a little thick
It's actually the first step in therapy to analyze the patient's environment and detect fields of conflict, be it the parents, the BF/GF, a bad situation at work or whatever. During therapy you will work on how to behave in difficult situations, like if your dad keeps telling you how to do things, you'll learn how to oppose his attacks, maybe he'll even be invited to one or two sittings so you can all talk about it. Or when the problem is anxiety, you'll learn how to confront your fear step by step, learn to deal with it and most importantly, learn that your fear is unjustified.