Home | | Feedback | | Feedback-Psychology | | Share This Page |
Copyright © 2008, Paul Lutus — Message Page
(double-click any word to see its definition)
"The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."In case the irony is lost on you, Koch restates my argument, almost word for word.
"The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion."
"The EBP [evidence-based practice] movement in U.S. society is truly a juggernaut, racing to achieve accountability in medicine, psychology, education, public policy and even architecture. The zeitgeist is to require professionals to base their practice to whatever extent possible on evidence. Thus, psychology needs to define EBP in psychology or it will be defined for us. We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines."Levant's point is that responsible agencies are on the verge of denying funding for present therapeutic practices on the ground that they are not based on anything remotely resembling science. His argument is that clinical psychology is losing the public's trust and may soon lose its primary source of income (HMOs and granting agencies). Make sure, though, not to go on continuing to make logical errors as you have ... Post your evidence, not your opinions. I have quoted the evidence, while you have responded by telling me how you feel about the evidence. I have quoted psychologists who criticize their own field, while you have replied by saying you want to vomit. You'll want to view evidence that contradicts your perspective, I would rely on you to do that, except you can't seem to find any support for your position, consequently you're reduced to telling me how you want to vomit if you hear any more evidence for my position. and you'll want to share it with any people who choose to read this dicussion. I've produced my evidence, while you can't seem to post anything other than a protracted exhibition of scientific ignorance. Oh, that's right, one last thing. The following was copied from your website:
This exchange is typical of my conversations with psychologists. A common defect is that they put forth a pseudoscientific standard of evidence: "Psychology is scientific unless you can prove that it isn't", which would require proof of a negative, rather than the scientific one based on the null hypothesis: "Psychology isn't scientific unless and until positive evidence supports a different conclusion, and psychologists are responsible for producing the evidence."
Since the time of the above exchange, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has decided to no longer accept scientific research proposals that rely on the DSM (psychology's "Bible") as their basis, for the simple reason that the DSM has no scientific content. NIMH director Thomas Insel explained his decision this way: "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." (Source)
This 2013 change represents a welcome step in the replacement of psychology by neuroscience.Home | | Feedback | | Feedback-Psychology | | Share This Page |