Soft Science I
I wanted to send you a link from a forum ... that I'm a member of, and where I brought you up and your take on psychology. I think it cleared up my view a little on the issue. However interesting I found your articles on the topic, I have to disagree with a few.
It would have been interesting to hear which points you disagreed with.
I know that you've stated that neuroscience will basically be able to replace psychology at some point and how dubious a subject-field it is. A couple of posts in the thread take on that point. I also want to bring up a quote related to a one of the comments in the thread: 'Perception contains interior and exterior modalities, or Wilber’s solution to the Mind-Body Problem in philosophy. You can cut open someone’s brain, track the neurons firing when they think about a cat, but which is real, the neurons firing or the thought about the cat? It depends who you ask.'
Not really — neuroscience may be unimaginative compared to mind studies, but in exchange it doesn't rely on opinion, it relies on repeatable measurements. We might not be able to reconstruct a person's subjective experience by measuring brainwaves or scanning the brain in 3D, but the advantage of brain science is that it's empirical — every similarly equipped observer measures the same thing. This greatly reduces the level of confusion at the experimental level compared to mind studies.
People can pretend to have PTSD, or pretend not to if they prefer that outcome, because it's about the mind, not the brain. Psychologists can hand out Asperger Syndrome diagnoses or withhold them, depending on unrelated factors like the popularity of the diagnosis, because it's about the mind, not the brain.
People can report that they recently remembered they were brutally raped years ago but suppressed the memory, as in Recovered Memory Therapy, then, after the imaginary criminals are jailed, realize they were talked into their memories by a psychologist, because it's about the mind, not the brain.
By studying the brain, we can craft scientific theories and put neuroscience on a reliable theoretical foundation. We cannot do this by studying the mind, because the mind inconveniences us by not existing.
The drawback to brain studies is that it relies less on vivid imagination and more on comparatively boring, repeatable, direct measurements than mind studies do. That's also its advantage.
Soft Science II
[ This is a forward from a psychology discussion group. ]
I'm going to quote [deleted to assure privacy], since I think he put it better than I could:
"Psychologist have reproduced the same/statistically similar results in studies thousands and thousands of times.
Yes, and every time an astrologer casts a chart for a given birthdate, it comes out the same. This means getting the same result over and over for a given experiment doesn't by itself make the result science.
What psychologists don't do is shape theories about their research — theories that can be tested, theories that would force all psychologists onto the same page, theories that might turn psychology into a science.
There are many, many perfectly scientific psychological studies, conducted efficiently and with discipline. What psychology doesn't have are central, defining theories on which all psychologists agree, that could turn the field into a science — the kinds of theories that define all legitimate sciences: for biology, evolution, natural selection, cell biology, genetics. For physics, the Standard Model, relativity, cosmology, particle physics. For medicine, theories about germs and epidemics — as well as some theories it shares with biology.
It's true that some studies produce contradictory results some of the times, but that's often because the experiments were set up differently, they were carried out poorly, or the hypothesis is unreliable. This is true for biology or physics as well.
It's not the failed experiments that make physics and biology sciences — it's the successes, the experiments that becomes theories, the theories that go on to define those fields.
Psychology doesn't have any of those. Psychology is completely Balkanized by an inability to settle on general psychological principles, in the way that relativity unites physics, and evolution unites biology.
They have documented hundreds of times where chemists or physicists unconsciously affect the results of their own experiments and come up with contradictory information.
See above.
And yes, psychology is considered a "soft" science.
Hold on — science isn't an ice cream store with hard ice cream and soft ice cream. In the science store there's just one flavor — its ingredients are evidence, testable theories, and the essential ingredient of falsifiability. For scientific fields (as opposed to scientific studies), the requirements are similar, except that fields are defined by tested, reliable, falsifiable theories — the kind of theories that don't exist in psychology.
But I think the criticisms of soft sciences is ridiculous. People think that just because something can't be objectively measured, it must not be true, or it must be useless.
That's not the problem. The problem is not that someone can or cannot claim that a practice is useful. The problem is there is no scientific basis for demonstrating that fact. Once someone tries to claim that a given practice is "useful" but without evidence on which different practitioners can agree, it is in that moment that the field leaves the domain of science. In psychology, for lack of science to back up claims of utility, there are as many fiefdoms as there are laboratories, and they often don't even talk to each other.
As a result, there are endless examples in which different groups of psychologists come to completely opposite conclusions about the same behavior, refuse to read their own literature, then start schools of "thought" that flatly contradict each other. Here's an example — one promising new school of thought is called Grit (personality_trait)
A quote: "Grit in psychology is a positive, non-cognitive trait, based on an individual’s passion for a particular long-term goal or endstate coupled with a powerful motivation to achieve their respective objective."
So based on that, it seems that a concert violinist is more likely to be successful if he focuses his attention on playing the violin for hours or days, as opposed to taking a walk in the park, to the exclusion of other activities, in furtherance of his personal goal. Someone like Albert Einstein is a classic "Grit" success story — he spent years and nearly ruined his health in devoted focus on one goal — his theory of relativity.
Admirable, yes? Not necessarily. Here's another school of thought — Asperger Syndrome
A quote: "Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's syndrome or Asperger disorder, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."
Wait, what? Did I read that right? The same behavior — devoted focus and absorption in one pursuit, celebrated by the "Grit" contingent, will get you diagnosed with a mental illness by the Asperger's contingent. And guess which historical figure has been branded an AS sufferer? Einstein, of course.
Psychology will not become a science unless and until its practitioners shape, and then test, general principles of human mental functioning, until all its practitioners agree on what the field actually means, until it has testable content that is not a matter of opinion. Until people aren't thrown in jail for imaginary sex crimes (Recovered memory Therapy). And until evidence ranks higher than eminence.
This is ridiculous. Otherwise, you may as well walk around and say, "I didn't like cereal today, but my dopamine recepters signaled satisfaction to me." Or "I didn't have sex, my testosterone spiked and signalled it was time for sexual activity." Measuring people's subjective experiences (and yes, surveys can suck, but no they're not the only way) can be incredibly useful, and I would argue, at times even MORE useful, than finding the neurological reasons something is happening.
Oh, do feel free to argue. But as a scientist, I rank evidence above argument. Your claim that a given practice is "useful", however persuasive, means nothing without scientific evidence. And this is more than a philosophical point — medical insurers are eventually going to stop paying for treatments that have no basis in scientific evidence.
For instance, clinical psychologists have known for over a century that talking about your problems make the pain or intensity of the emotions less and makes you feel better.
Yes, it's something called the Placebo Effect. Prove this wrong using science — prove that the fact that all therapies produce the same result, is not strong evidence for the Placebo Effect, and counterevidence for the often-heard claim that these individual therapies actually mean anything apart from the simple and therapeutic pleasure of conversation.
Recently, neurologists discovered ...
Do avoid trying to use neuroscience to support psychological ideas. Neuroscience is a science on the ground that it studies the brain, a physical organ. Psychology studies the mind, which inconveniences the field by not existing (in the way the brain exists) and by not being accessible to empirical study.
... that speaking about feelings activates the neo-cortex and overrides the amygdala — where much of the fear and painful emotions are felt. This suggests that *drum roll* talking about your painful emotions will lessen the intensity of which you feel them — ta da!
I am perpetually amazed by what psychologists think constitutes science. Do the terms "control group" and "double-blind experiment" sound familiar? Drum roll, ta-da, show me the evidence that arose in a disciplined, replicated study with a control group and double-blind precautions. Show me such a study that both clinical psychologists and psychiatrists accept without reservation, and that survives replication.
One final comment. In 1964, two researchers at Bell Labs tried to rid their microwave dish of an annoying noise. But, even though they chased birds away and painted and scrubbed, they didn't locate the source of the noise. They had a signal without an explanation.
Meanwhile, in a nearby university, a group of cosmologists realized that evidence for the Big Bang theory might be in the form of a microwave signal coming from every direction. They didn't have a microwave dish to test their idea, which meant they had an explanation without a signal.
One day the Bell Labs people called the university people and asked about the annoying noise in their dish.
This is a first-rate scientific story, indeed one of the best. Bell labs had a dish but no theory. The university people had a theory but no dish. The two groups connected, and the reason this connection led to a new, very important discovery (and some Nobel Prizes) was because both the Bell labs people, and the university people, had a common theoretical framework that made meaningful cooperation possible. They were on the same scientific page. They were interested only in resolving a shared theoretical issue — meaning they were scientists.
Psychology doesn't work this way. If it ever does, if different groups of psychologists should actually communicate and cooperate, if (as just one example) the "Grit" and Asperger's contingents should ever be willing to talk to each other, at that point psychology might earn the right to call itself a science, and deserve a public trust that it hasn't yet earned.
Now read some science
On the Fence IV
... I still stand behind the first part of my email (the explanation why theoretical CS is a science and psychology isn't).
Yes, but read my comments on that section — both theoretical and applied computer science are sciences, for some rather simple, easily expressed reasons.
In my psychology lecture slides I saw no note on unifying research efforts and how that relates to defining something as science.
Of course not — that's not something that a psychologist would either know or volunteer in a lecture. But to see the role of theoretical unification, all one need do is read the history of fields that actually are sciences and see the role played by theory and consensus. But more important, if you think about science deeply enough, you will no longer feel the need to locate an expert you agree with, because you will personally understand the topic based on fundamentals of science and logic.
Actually, I couldn't find much information on this topic at all.
It's part of science philosophy, not typical science instruction, for the reason that teachers don't want to overload their students with philosophy while they're learning the basics. Also, psychologists would certainly not reveal this, because their version of science doesn't honor these principles.
It's instructive to compare the role of theory and consensus across a spectrum of scientific and pseudoscientific fields. Starting with physics, where theory is a central issue that defines both the field and its content, moving through biology, psychology, sociology, and astrology, one sees a clear decline in the role of theory formation and testing, and the degree to which the field is guided by theoretical principles.
This is not meant to suggest that scientists simply go along with established principles. Nobel prizes are equally likely to be awarded for work that overthrows existing theories as confirms them. Scientists have every incentive to find shortcomings in established theories. But unless someone is willing to craft a testable theory, science can't begin.
What is interesting is that Kuhn is something that's being taught in class, but its criticism about psychology is not. To see if I agree with you means that I should see if I agree with Kuhn his philosphy, because you're essentially saying the same thing.
I have to tell you something. The point of this exercise is not for you to decide which expert you agree with, the point is for you to educate yourself to the point where you will understand why science must be the way it is, arising from first principles, not because of some expert or authority.
This is a classic example of self-reference, because psychology is overreliant on authority and reputation, and nearly indifferent to the need for shared principles and evidence. So your effort to scope out the science landscape is being hindered by the context of psychology and social "sciences", which don't turn on scientific principles and don't properly teach critical thinking.
But, rather than accept my claim that science must have theories and explanations, let's pretend this isn't necessary, that descriptions are enough, and see where this leads (this is a logic exercise called reductio ad absurdum).
Here goes. Let's say I'm a doctor and I've invented a cure for the common cold. In my cure, I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he is all better. Sometimes my cure takes a week, but it always works. My result has been replicated in many other laboratories, it's been published in refereed journals, therefore it's science — at least, as psychology understands the word "science".
According to the psychological science model, I don't have to try to explain my result or consider alternative explanations for the outcome — I only have to describe it. I don't have to compare my result to the established theories of my field, the product of all the efforts of scientists before me, and I don't have to craft a new theory that would allow others to test my result in different contexts, in order to confirm or falsify my result as a general principle. I don't have to build and support a testable theory in order to produce an evidence-based consensus among members of my own field and move everyone onto the same page. Psychologists don't have to do that, so I don't either.
The above absurd outcome, the above silly excuse for science, is how psychologists do research, but they don't understand what's wrong with it, and they certainly didn't foresee that society would eventually abandon psychological science altogether.
Again, don't take anyone's word for this — not mine, not Kuhn's, not Wikipedia's, no one's. Figure it out for yourself — learn the topic well enough that you will understand why science must have theories, falsifiability and consensus. Apropos, the motto of the British Royal Academy, the oldest science academy, is "Nullius in Verba" — take no one's word for it.
If Psychology Vanished ...
"Suppose tomorrow that all scholarly efforts of the psychologists should disappear from the collective knowledge of mankind ...
Would it really make a difference?"
I know that you are probably really busy and do not have time for these questions. But I would really like to know your opinion on this subject, because I'm writing and essay and it would help me see it from a different point of view (I'm a Psychology student.)
You're using a number of poorly defined, vague terms (like "scholarly" and "collective knowledge") in your question, terms that cannot be resolved using scientific evidence, terms more appropriate to a philosophical than a scientific discussion.
Nevertheless, if the content of psychology were to disappear from society, it would represent a great loss. The loss would be the availability of the field as an example of how completely people can be lured into believing that a field has scientific substance even though it never poses or tests theories about its topic.
What is a scientific theory? A scientific theory is a testable, falsifiable attempt to explain something that has only been described. And make no mistake — theories are required for science, and psychiatry/psychology doesn't have any theories, only descriptions.
Do you doubt the need for theories? Consider this hypothetical example — let's say I'm an ambitious doctor who believes he has cured the common cold. My treatment is to shake dried gourds over my patients until they get better. The treatment always works, it is perfectly reliable and repeatable, it has been successfully replicated in independent laboratories, and the correlation between treatment and cure is 100%.
I believe I have cured the common cold because I have not tried to explain my treatment, I believe I only need to describe it — just like a psychiatrist describing the effect of an antidepression medication, or a psychologist describing the effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Psychiatrists and psychologists don't try to shape theories — potentially falsifiable explanations — but they consider themselves scientists, and they think their treatments are something other than the Placebo Effect. The pseudoscience precedent established by psychiatry and psychology means my imaginary doctor can claim to be a scientist, armed with his witch-doctor dried gourds, and it means his common-cold treatment is just as effective as talk therapy or antidepression drugs (which, ironically, it is).
However, if he attempted to explain his result, to propose a theory, he would have to design a test of its validity, one that would falsify his theory if it failed. And if he did this, he would discover that no treatment is just as effective as the dried-gourd treatment. By the same token, if psychiatrists and psychologists attempted to explain their results, they would have to design tests of their validity, and (as some have already discovered) they would find that in many cases, any treatment, or no treatment, worked as well as the accepted treatments.
But they won't do this — instead, as the years go by, psychiatrists and psychologists add new imaginary illnesses to the roster of officially recognized mental illnesses, add new drugs meant to treat these imaginary illnesses, and never try to explain what they've described.
Things have gotten so bad that the director of the NIMH (the highest-ranking U.S. psychiatrist) has reluctantly decided to abandon the DSM as a guide to future scientific research, saying:
"The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."
"Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment."
If you read the above carefully, you will see that the director is saying exactly what I'm saying, using different words.
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Description versus Explanation
I read your essay on psychology not being a science. I think you levy some strong and valid criticism against the field; however, there is some stuff that is not correct. For instance, your description of facilitated communication makes it sound as if the entire field thought facilitated communication was a well-supported idea.
I never said that. I did say that it is still practiced by psychiatrists and psychologists, easily verified online.
I aver that the majority of the field did NOT view facilitated communication well, with most rejecting it as the pseudoscience that it is.
The only relevant point is whether psychiatrists and psychologists can practice Facilitated Communication without interference, and whether psychology's clients see it as a practice that's accepted by psychology. The answer to these questions is clearly yes, and psychiatrists and psychologists are free to practice Facilitated Communication if they choose.
Compare this to Chiropractic, which is not accepted as medicine, and which cannot be practiced in a medical hospital. The difference? Medicine honors science and evidence.
Do you criticize the field of medicine because some doctors accept homeopathic treatments (which is equally as ridiculous as facilitated communication)?
Why should I? If homeopathic treatments are presented as clinically accepted in a hospital setting absent evidence of their safety and efficacy, the doctors would be arrested and subsequently barred from practicing medicine. Which means your example has no basis in reality.
It would be disingenuous to criticize a field as broad as medicine or psychology based on a ridiculous therapy practiced by a small minority of the field.
You just justified murder, which is a ridiculous therapy to settle personal differences practiced by only a small minority of people. One difference between science and pseudoscience in the clinic is that a scientific clinical practice absolutely prevents therapies that are not backed up by scientific evidence. Not a "small minority", but not at all.
I do agree with your criticisms of recovered memories and the harm some mental health practitioners caused, and I believe that any treatment or sub-area of psychology, medicine, or psychiatry needs to be validated and well-replicated to be taken seriously and if it can't do that, it needs to be dismissed as pseudoscience.
Then based on the fact that Recovered Memory Therapy is still practiced by psychiatrists and psychologists, psychology is pseudoscience — it doesn't wait for evidence to justify therapeutic procedures as is required in medicine.
Which brings us to an important difference between science and pseudoscience. In pseudoscience, ideas are assumed to be true until proven false. In science, ideas are assumed to be false until proven true (the "null hypothesis") — exactly the opposite.
Why is it a mistake to assume claims are true unless proven false? Easily explained — let's say I'm a pseudoscientist who believes in Bigfoot. According to the pseudoscientific thesis, Bigfoot exists unless someone can prove he doesn't exist. But think about this — Bigfoot cannot possibly be proven not to exist somewhere in the universe, hiding under some rock. In formal logic, a disproof would require "proof of a negative", an impossible evidentiary burden. Therefore a skeptical, scientific outlook is essential to avoid wasting time on childish fantasies.
However, let's take closer look at recovered memories. Since the 1990s, many cognitive psychologists--granted not clinical psychologists--have showed that using the techniques used to recover memories can reliably (both in statistical sense within an experiments as well as across experiments done by many different investigators) create false memories. I disagree that these many studies in the 90s had no impact on clinical psychology and the reduction of these unethical recovered-memory treatments.
Feel free to disagree all you want, but the fact is that psychiatrists and psychologists are presently free to practice Recovered Memory Therapy if they choose. The reason? Psychology has no scientific standards to prevent any therapy whatever from being put into practice in clinics. In this case, the essential scientific standard is the assumption that a claim is false until unimpeachable evidence supports it. The history of psychiatry and psychology clearly shows that ideas are assumed to be valid until they're proven false and/or harmful — the definition of pseudoscience.
Recovered Memory Therapy wasn't falsified in scientific experiments, it was discouraged (but not eliminated) by courtroom proceedings including many multimillion dollar judgments against its practitioners. U.S. courts have ruled that they will no longer hear Recovered Memory Therapy cases. But none of this can stop psychologists from offering the therapy if they choose. The reason? It hasn't been proven false, therefore it must be true — the logic of the pseudoscientist.
To be clear, I am not defending clinical psychology. In fact, I agree that a lot of clinical psychology is still mired in pseudoscience. However, I know there are many well-replicated phenomenon [sic] in regards to human memory.
Well-replicated descriptions, not explanations. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable explanations. More on this topic below.
In fact, in my research methods class the students complete both basic (demonstrating things like the testing effect, the spacing effect, hypermnesia, etc) and applied (using empirically supported "good" and "bad" memory principles) experiments on themselves to show research design, to show that these findings replicate, and learn how to study in a more effective fashion.
You've just offered a description. You're missing the very important difference between description and explanation — in science, observations are explained, and the explanations must be open to empirical test and potential falsification.
Mere descriptions are not science. For science, we must have testable, falsifiable explanations. Do you doubt this? Okay, how about a thought experiment? Let's say I'm a doctor who believes he has cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. My cure always works, it is replicable in other laboratories, and it's perfectly reliable. But it is not science until I try to explain my result — at which point the errors in my thinking will be exposed.
These memory principles and demonstrations are based on theories that make falsifiable predictions.
You're misusing the word "theory", applying it to a description with no theoretical dimension. My cure for the common cold has the same standing. I predict that anyone who gets my dried-gourd treatment will recover within a few days. My prediction is falsifiable and replicable. But it is not a theory, defined as an attempt to explain and generalize a mere description.
If the findings were not well-replicated, I would change the practice of telling students to do these things.
So is my cold cure — very well-replicated. But it's not science, it's nonsense masquerading as science.
In sum, while I think you rightly point out a lot of problems with clinical psychology, I think some of your essay is a bit disingenuous in presenting some pseudoscientific ideas as being more accepted by the entire field (I don't even think psychology can be summed up as one field).
Yes, and that demonstrates how far psychology is removed from the world of science. If psychology were a science, it would have a single, central, corpus of theory that would define the entire field, as is true for every single true science without exception.
Physics has the Standard Model, which defines the entire field and all subfields. Every new physical finding has the potential to reinforce or falsify all of physics. Each subfield of physics must compare its findings with the Standard Model, and either support or falsify some part of it. Particle physicists, who study nature at the smallest scale, attend conferences alongside cosmologists, who study nature at the largest scale. They productively share findings and conclusions, for the simple reason that their apparently different pursuits are defined and unified by a common corpus of scientific theory.
Particle physicists don't say about cosmologists that they're not the "real thing", as psychiatrists regularly say about clinical psychologists (and vice versa). The difference? Physics is a science. All physicists are on the same page.
Biology is defined by theories of evolution, natural selection, cell biology and a handful of other theories, all empirical, all falsifiable. All biologists are on the same page.
Each scientific field is similarly defined — by testable, empirical, unifying, general statements about reality. And if reality disagrees, the theory must be discarded — even an entire field on occasion.
Finally, each claim must be falsifiable and be well-replicated before it can be taken seriously.
By the same faulty reasoning, my cold cure is falsifiable — if it ever didn't work, that might be taken as a falsification. It has to be well-replicated as well, and it is. So, given this spectacular breakthrough, why don't I get a Nobel Prize for curing the common cold? The answer is that my cold cure isn't a scientific theory, it's a brainless observation lacking the most trivial degree of insight, like 99% of psychology.
The problem you and psychology face is that you have no idea what constitutes science. You think a falsifiable, replicable description is equivalent to a falsifiable, replicable explanation — a theory that generalizes descriptions, unifies disparate observations and is open to empirical falsification.
Another example. If I say the night sky is filled with little points of light, I have put forth a description — it's falsifiable and replicable (everyone will report the same thing unless it's cloudy), but it's not science. If instead I say those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, but at great distances, that is a theory that can be empirically tested and potentially falsified. I've just crossed the threshold of science.
In case you think this is just my idea, I should tell you that Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, has recently used similar reasoning to rule that the DSM can no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content. In explanation, Insel said about the DSM that "... each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity". Many see this historic ruling as the first step in the demotion of psychology to the status of astrology.
I know the such phenomenon [sic] exist and to suggest the entire big bloated (artificially conjoined) field of psychology has none of this is empirically not the case.
What psychology has none of, as you have just proved, is the slightest idea what constitutes science. Again, science is not descriptions of phenomena, it requires testable, falsifiable explanations — theories. Again, science assumes a theory to be false until it's supported by evidence, the opposite of the default posture of psychiatrists and psychologists as clearly demonstrated in modern clinical practice.
Apparently this psychologist's teachers, apart from skipping the meaning of science, never got around to explaining the difference between phenomenon and phenomena.