Psychology is probably an undeveloped science

Post Reply New Topic

Psychology is probably an undeveloped science; hold back by humankinds preferring falsehood instead of the truth. Falsehood like organised religion .The thing is that even in the absence of religion people seem to gravitate to falseness for political or social reasons.

The reason why the majority of cannot see the scientific truth about human nature is not because they are stupid but because knowing the truth would have so much social implication; Ignorance is power.

I don't expect anyone to reply to this thread as it is a bit of a ramble on.

Well, the first part is relatively true given the relative scientific strength of physics, chemistry, and biology compared to psychology. Most social sciences have a history including a lot of subjective assessments and thus this prevents them from absolute objectivity to a good extent. Falseness is a religion that needs no organization to have converts and suicide bombers though.

Ignorance is power, ideology is strength. The truth is too difficult to see objectively anyway given the thousands of weightings, the thousands of intellectual arguments, the thousands of statistics. The sheer number of disagreements in the world is such that absolute truth is perhaps for all practical purposes non-existent.

Meh, whatever, I responded.

Not really, there are less competing scientific views then there are religious. Region (especially Christianity) key to survival is verity. The stronger verities live while the weaker ones die. Most fields of science don’t need such verity to maintain it’s survival because science is worked out by deduction and reasoning not war competition.

I am surprised that Christians cannot understand that while Christianity need verity to maintain its identity; the science of evolution exists as only one verity. The thing is that if the theory of evolution were an evolved lie like religions are, it would have died of interbreeding a long time ago.

The truth does not evolve because it is the truth.

psychology is still very much a young science and still developing.


we still haven't debunked all of jung yet. despite him being an idiot and only a man of his time.

Freud & Jung are both quacks; the field of psychology is full of others and their disciples.
Psychology is as much of a science as astrology.

When the science of neurology is better understood, then the psychologist's use will be reduced to that of astrologist & fortune teller.

We're at the stage where we are just finding ways to label things we are already familiar with.

Well, it depends what field of psychology you're talking about. To call everything in the field of "Psychology" the same shows that you don't understand anything about the field of psychology. There are many different fields in Psychology: Experimental, I/O, Clinical, Cognitive, Applied Social, Neuroscience.

However, I do agree with everyone about the theories proposed in the field of Clinical Psychology (this is the field of Freud and Jung) to be below the standards of science and similar to astrology in a matter, although in some sense they are above astrology, but below the scientific method. However, Experimental, Cognitive, and Neuroscience are up to the standards of the scientific method, and a lot of serious work in human behavior is done in these fields. The studies are as objective as any scientific study can be, with papers being peer reviewed before being published in serious academic journals.

To say that Neurology will replace Psychology means that you don't really understand what Neurology or Psychology is. Neurology is the field of healing the human brain, and yes, you do need to understand the way the brain works in order to heal it, this is a different type of understanding than what is the aim of Cognitive Psychology or Neuroscience. Cognitive Psychology is the field of understanding the way the brain works and interacts with the environment around it while Neurology aims to understand the physical mechanisms of the brain. There are some overlap, but the different fields are distinctly different, which is why a Neurologist holds an M.D., and a Neuroscientist holds a Ph.D.

Some of the information that Neurologists rely on comes from Neuroscientists.

not entirely...i'd say if anything, it's more like biometrics.....except i grant psychology more credit than biometrics.

I doubt it. Why do you think "depressed" people release negative chemicals into their blood stream? Anxiety = cortisol. Remove anxiety (the THOUGHT thats causing it because thats what Anxiety is, looping thoughts (what are thoughts? you're looking at psychology and philosophy for an answer)) remove the cortisol. Cortisol is a physical thing (we can see with a microscope) but the thought that caused the release of the chemical is NOT a physical thing. So we have a non-physical thought causing a "physical" reaction. Neurology will not GIVE you thoughts that cause anxiety but it'll explain whats happening during those 'thoughts'/anxiety. Another science is required to examine the 'thoughts' themselves. The mind is a wonderful thing.

Are you willing to go against many researchers and popular thought of today? If so, then you should provide more proof then a simple "Psychology is as much of a science as astrology." Hell, open up any thread here and tell me psychology is a crock. This is the one place I wouldn't think I'd hear that, to be honest.

Freud thought everyone was, or should be, like him, a base he never explored. If you leave the paitents out, the rest is him. Since he based all his writing on his view, he kept coming back to the same points.

Jung was selling a Universal Archtype, with variations like a Hindoo statue. it was a religon, the facets of god. Everything came from Sanscrit, it was a cultural ripoff. I did like the pictures in his book, the marketing was good, it was Pop-Psych-Art. An early Sagen of the mind, P.T. Jung, and the Greatest Show on Earth. He did make money.

The person who took the ball and ran was L. Ron Hubbard. It would not surprise me to find that they are all members. The pitch is the same. The are both money grubing under the guise of I know God personally, and can fix things, also used by churches and lawyers.

None of them have become rich or popular. According to the lable on their snake oil, with their deep understanding, they should have all made a killing in the stock market, for they can understand everything, and do more than predict the future. Instead they make less than teachers. At least they can teach forth grade. They could not even make it on their own, NIMH is a welfare program for keeping them off the street. They latched on to a low level government job with no promotion, no one in their pretend science having any fame, sucess, higher than radio talk show performer.

They exist because drug companies were looking for new markets, and come out with new wonders every few years that fade into history. Where is Miltown? They are flacks, run by sales reps, who hand out flyers and free samples, to create a market.

As all minds are different, more complex than a thousand other minds could figure out, at a moment, with no guess at an hour from now. Yet these people who could not make it through a hard science, have no background in anything but babble, claim they can identitfy, treat, and cure, things that other people are sure do not exist.

Pick any five year period of their "scientific treatment," none of them match. Science is that which is repeteable, they have never deloped anything. They are not even good students, they lost Asburger, and the English one, for twenty-five years.

When I was at the University Psych Major was code for nut case, and now they are self medicating.

To use Jung, the Archtype of the Profession, is Hannible Lector.

If psychology was merely the gathering of statistics without the incorporation of licensing authority to provide more control by human government, then I'd say psychology was simply the study of human behavior. However, since it goes beyond that point, I sometimes feel it's more like an atheistic religion that's enforced upon society rather than an undeveloped science. Of all the sciences that exist, I've never seen one which changes more than psychology.

Well like science, our understanding of psychology is always evolving.

I agree with kosmonaut.

I still think that Freud and Jung were the most valid things that people had back then. They were not very objective but maybe they were a little better than the DSM? Maybe not.. who knows?

But Jung was more concerned about the human spirit. And I compliment that.

Anyway,

In fact, ever since Jung was mentioned, it sparked a little interest into knowing some of his work. I only have a vague idea of him.

My personal knowledge is: There are dualities I know of the mind. I have my own obscure understanding of it. But, at least, it is objective and intuitive!

I do know about the unconcious. Actually, I beleive that there is a seperation of the mind and the body. But that thinking doesn't go anywhere yet. Stuff like that needs more clarity to prove anything. Anyway, in regard to cognition, I know how instinctual drives such as reflexive socializing keep people from noticing much of things beyond that. Its easier this way. The more concious we are of the outside world, the more we have to filter through our awareness. It gets confusing when the unconcious isn't there to guide us as this guidance lets us live peacefully in its own partial dream. But perhaps this unconcious fights for its function to be there. So anything that interferes will be attacked. Its only a vague idea anyway.

One thing that I keep in mind: I think that the neurosciences definetly can be a good tool to prove the brains' functioning.

Things that have to do with behavior is not part of the neurosciences! Aspergers and other behavioral issues have to do with your behavior. If you are brave enough to know this, perhaps a book written by Thomas Szasz will open your eyes at least to some degree.

I also do beleive in behavioral problems. People that don't shut up and don't listen - who have adhd or whatever have some kind of condition. Does that mean that its predetermined?: No, not unless they can prove to people otherwise that they are sane conversationalists...

So this is what I look for so I can thrive. If people don't make any god damn sense when I talk to them then screw them..

[quote="Kosmonaut"]
Psychology is as much of a science as astrology.

Have you seen the statistics?!

It would be correct to say that psychology is not defined as an 'exact science' but it is a new field, still in its infancy and developing slowly.

Its psychiatrists you want to watch out for (these are the real quacks).