Note: Because my psychology correspondence has gradually evolved toward offering people advice, I want to say I am not a psychologist and any advice I offer is based only on common sense and life experience. I think most educated readers will accept this.
Open All |
Close All
Scientific or Not?
Hello, I am a student at [ ... ] University. I found your page while looking for information on whether psychology was actually as scientific as it said it was. I found the general idea of it interesting, however have been somewhat disappointed after beginning certain pyschology courses. It really struck a nerve that a child psychology course I enrolled into did not seem to be as strictly scientific as I hoped. I've read your article and some of the responses, and your arguments seem valid. Am I right to understand that you feel all of psychology is essentially useless pseudoscience, or is there some measure of it that has worth? Your article would seem to suggest the former, and that is something I have been fearing. What also worries me is that none of the proclaimed psychology Ph. Ds have had very coherent or even logical arguments, and as you claim often retreat to arguments from authority, when in fact authority doesn't actually matter in the sciences.
So then my main question is, is there any branch of psychology or group of pyschologists who are actually scientific (in your view) in method? This is a major concern for me as I was heavily considering persuing psychology and I absolutely could not with a clear conscience ally myself with pseudoscience, it being something I have attempted to counter at all points possible. I will continue to look into this, but await your response, as it seems to be somewhat more based upon rationality and logic (than your opponents), which I praise highly.We need to define our terms. Psychology using pigeons as subjects can be reasonably scientific, because pigeons don't have rights. Psychology using humans (and/or about humans) cannot be very scientific because you cannot perform rigorous experiments on humans. An example of such an experiment would be one in which neither the experimenter nor the subjects know whether they are part of the experimental or control group (the "double-blind" design). This is simultaneously impossible and unethical.
Suppose the "experiment" is meant to determine whether a particular kind of counseling is efficacious in preventing suicide in adolescents. If it is, then the control group will have more suicides than the experimental group. But this experiment would never be carried out for obvious ethical reasons, therefore such a therapeutic method (and any other therapeutic methods, for the same reasons) can never be rigorously tested.
This is why human psychology accepts claims such as "subject X received therapy Y and later reported that she felt better, so therapy Y must be efficacious." In other words, the most trivial issues, such as confusing correlation with causation, are ignored.
Most of my critics sidestep the question of whether psychology is scientific and instead emphasize that psychology helps people. But they cannot prove it. They cannot prove it because of what they sidestepped at the outset.
There are any number of absolute horror stories in the field of psychology, some of which are recounted in my paper "A Society of Victims", but for obvious reasons, many psychologists criticize this sort of writing as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My point is psychology has a difficult time justifying the bath, and as to doing it scientifically, they really don't know where to start.
My Professors are Unhappy
Paul, thank you for writing such clear and insightful articles. I am a [ ... ] student at [ ... ] University, [ ... ]. I stumbled onto your site a few years ago, and it has helped me further my education in many ways, especially in terms of self-study.
It is absolutely true that college university education is more concerned with the rules of authority rather than reciprocal discourse.
I have shown a couple of samples of your writing to some of my professors (namely psych. doctorates) and have been disappointed by their reactions. They reject some of your statements while agreeing with your larger ideas. One professor contradicted himself so much that I began to worry that he might project some of his frustration with your thesis on to me as a student. He refused to even visit your site and read the article completely (though I believe he will in secret). I have learned to be very aware of a teacher's subverted authority complex, which always lurks beneath the surface of otherwise thoughtful and intelligent personas.I am astonished by how many psychologists feel justified in rejecting an argument on emotional grounds, and I find that many cannot evaluate ideas in isolation from how they feel about those ideas.
As far as I am concerned, if a person can recount imaginary "memories" under the care of a psychologist, cause the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of her relatives, then later recant those same memories and switch to prosecuting the therapist, with none of these events ringing alarm bells among theoretical psychologists, then there is no meaningful connection between psychology and science.
If I make a statement about gravity, it will be either correct or incorrect, and if the statement could have an effect on society, someone will come forward and vet the remark based on science. By contrast, if I make a remark about psychology, even if my remark might cause someone to lose his freedom, no one will come forward. The only way I can undo the damage is to recant.
The last time someone tried to make a scientist recant was during the notorious prosecution of Galileo by the Church in the 17th century. Since then, people have come to realize that evidence and evidence collection are much more productive activities than arguing and making things up (except, of course, for religion and psychology).I am not quite able to clearly articulate what I observe of their responses, but I recognize the weakness of their rebutal arguments when I hear them. Paul, I realize now more than ever that I have to become more self-reliant when it comes to educating myself. If I have learned anything from your material, it is that.Then my time was well-spent.You have helped me, as well as countless others, better distinguish between good and bad sources of information through your use of strong syntax and rhetoric. Thanks again for your generosity.You are most welcome. I am happy that my articles are having some effect in academia.
