Scientists in psychology I
I was surprised to find that your blanket condemnation of the whole of Psychology does not include any comment on areas that have been properly studied (i.e. double-blind, randomized, controlled and with well-designed experiments).
Okay. Let's say that someone creates an astrology study, to see what the distribution of astrological signs is in the population. The study depends on a very large database of people and birthdates, and creates a statistical breakdown of the population by astrological sign.
The study is perfectly scientific, and those who conduct the study are qualified, scientifically trained, and completely indifferent to the outcome of their work — properties known to create good science.
The study is published in a reputable, refereed scientific journal and is replicated over and over again in other laboratories with the same result, therefore it meets every requirement for a solid scientific finding.
To summarize, a scientific result is produced by qualified scientists and published in a scientific journal, then replicated by other scientists in other scientific laboratories, none of the participants has an axe to grind or a reason to bias the result — the result is a textbook example of scientific research.
Now let me ask you a question — does this scientific astrology result make astrology scientific? After all, it is a very good scientific result about astrology. How can this high-quality, replicated scientific finding not make astrology a scientific field?
The answer is that a field doesn't become scientific because of scientific studies, of descriptions, or scientific researchers wearing white lab coats, it becomes scientific by offering testable explanations that are related to the field's topic of study, then testing those explanations against nature. The above "astrology study" cannot make astrology scientific because it doesn't address or test the ideas that define astrology.
Newton didn't explain gravity by saying that an apple fell from a tree in a particular way (that's a description, not an explanation). He explained gravity by applying the same principles to all objects influenced by gravity, and then he tested his explanation by observing more apples, and planets, and other objects influenced by gravity. He produced a single explanation that applied to all objects affected by gravity — he created a "theory". His theory didn't describe, it explained, and it could be tested against nature.
Louis Pasteur didn't simply claim that a specific disease was caused by a specific microorganism, he proposed that all infectious diseases arise from microorganisms. He moved from a description of one case to a testable explanation — a theory — about all cases. Pasteur's theory was a general statement about all similar cases, and it was testable against nature.
All genuinely scientific fields are defined by testable explanations — theories — like the examples above. Each of these theories is based on empirical, repeatable observations of nature, and any of them can be falsified by new persuasive evidence. None of the theories that define legitimate scientific fields is a simple description, all of them are explanations — testable, potentially falsifiable explanations.
In any of these scientific fields, if someone uncovers an observation that contradicts the field's defining theory or theories, it turns out that either the observation is wrong, or the field's theory is wrong. In any number of cases in the history of science, an entire field has been discarded because its theories were shown not to agree with observations of nature.
But pseudosciences operate on a different basis. In pseudoscience, its practitioners (who may well be qualified scientists) offer only descriptions, not explanations, and no one tries to make the leap from descriptions of specific cases to testable explanations of all cases — to "theories".
For example, in psychology right now, there are groups of fully qualified scientists describing the same behaviors in diametrically opposite ways. One example is the tendency of certain individuals to focus their attention on only a few, or one, activity, rather than engaging in many different activities.
About the above behavior, among psychologists there are two (or more) schools of thought. The "grit" contingent believes this ability and predisposition to focus one's attention is a very good thing — it's how a concert pianist becomes a concert pianist. It's how Einstein was able to create the General Theory of Relativity — by focusing all his time and energy for years on a single goal, to the exclusion of all others. It's how Newton was able to shape a theory of gravity and explain the motion of the planets — by focusing all his time and energy on thought and calculation.
Here is a "grit" link: Grit (personality trait) (Wikipedia)
Here is 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."
But there is another attitude toward this kind of focus — it's a symptom of Asperger Syndrome, a mental illness.
Here is an Asperger Syndrome link: Asperger syndrome
Here is 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."
I emphasize the phrase "restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" as being a very reliable way to acquire this diagnosis, as well as being a perfect description of "grit".
So, based on the above, being able to focus on a few, or only one, activity, might make you a famous scientist, but it might also get you diagnosed with a mental illness. Need I add that both Einstein and Newton are believed to have "suffered" from Asperger Syndrome?:
Link: Einstein, Newton, and Asperger Syndrome
Quote: "Researchers believe both Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton may have had Asperger syndrome, a developmental disorder in the autism spectrum. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, and Ioan James, of Oxford University, studied the behavior of both famous scientists. The researchers felt Einstein and Newton displayed personality traits characteristic of Asperger syndrome."
Next question — how can different psychologists — "scientists" — arrive at completely opposite conclusions about the same behavior? The answer is that no one in psychology tries to move from description to explanation, to shape testable "theories" of human behavior.
There are many fully qualified scientists working in psychology, and they regularly publish scientific papers in scientific journals. But is this enough to turn psychology into a science? Not unless those psychologists try to shape explanations, theories, about human behavior, then test their theories against nature.
And it wouldn't hurt if psychologists talked to each other, like scientists intent on arriving at a single theory of human behavior. As it happens, the "Asperger's" contingent and the "Grit" contingent offer diametrically opposite descriptions of the same behavior, and seem unaware that the other group even exists. And worse, both groups are more than willing to offer "therapies" to the public for what they think ails them, as though psychologists are competent to offer medical treatments.
Bottom line: psychology can only become a science by crafting, then testing, theories about human behavior — theories on which all psychologists agree, and that define the field. There are no such theories at the moment, theories on which different psychologists agree.
Are there scientists working in psychology? Yes, absolutely. Does this make psychology itself a science? No, absolutely not — no more than counting astrological signs can make astrology a science.
My main example is in the Psychology of Memory and Learning where good experiments have been replicated for decades, in all sorts of conditions, establishing results like the testing effect, spacing effect and the interleaving effect (all of which produce more learning and stronger memories than their contraries, restudying, massing and blocking).
Yes, and I can describe things as well — I can tell you how many Geminis and Tauruses there are among the population, with perfect accuracy. But what I cannot do is turn my description into an explanation about how the stars guide our lives, or make astrology a science.
This has led to interesting theories and frameworks about how human memory works (like Robert Bjork's desirable difficulties framework, suggesting that in some cases, the harder it is to learn something, the easier it will be to remember it in the future). And this was all done from a purely computational perspective.
Yes, and that description cannot be turned into an explanation, meaningfully replicated or potentially falsified — it is not science, it is philosophy.
I presume your silence can be interpreted as ...
What silence is that? The burden of evidence is not mine. The burden of evidence is on psychology to show that it can produce testable scientific theories. And the first evidence for this outcome will be clear restrictions on the activities of clinical psychologists, who correctly point out that theoretical psychology has no guidance to offer them.
Imagine if the field of medicine were run like psychology — doctors would be free to offer any treatments that came into their heads, on the ground that medical research is unable to craft reliable, testable theories about human health, theories sufficiently well-tested to guide medical practice. But this could only happen if medical research wasn't a science.
Scientists in psychology II
I'd like to first state that I did read some your writings from your website before writing to you. I had followed some of these same arguments you now represent and I still think they don't adress the points I particularly singled out. My main argument was not that Psychology is a science - I don't care all what gets classified as a science.
But that issue is critical. Do you think people have the right to open clinics and offer treatments that aren't based on reliable scientific evidence and clinical trials? Medicine doesn't allow this, why should psychology?
My point was quite simple that Psychology, unlike Astrology, is useful.
Both claims are unsupportable. It's obviously false that astrology isn't useful. If it were not useful, people wouldn't support it so enthusiastically. It's estimated that there are ten astrologers for every astronomer, and astronomy is generally regarded as useful.
As to psychology, to measure its usefulness, we need science, not opinion. Was Recovered Memory Therapy useful? Was it socially useful to charge any number of innocent people with imaginary sex crimes?
Was Prefrontal Lobotomy useful? Was it socially useful to destroy the lives of thousands of people who couldn't be meaningfully treated?
I am simply pointing out the flaws in your reasoning, not arguing that psychology isn't useful. But, just as with medicine, no meaningful measure of of psychology's usefulness can be gotten without the methods of science.
Psychology is just as useful as astrology is, and just as scientific.
It has doulble-checked, treble-checked, nth-time-checked results in the filed of Learning and Memory.
Do you have any idea how your arguments sound? My hypothetical astrology result has also been double- and triple-checked, but it is not science, it is a mere description with no depth, and it cannot turn astrology into a science.
These time-tried results allow us to understand something about the real world - namely what conditions favor the production of stronger memories and learning.
This is false. The results you list are mere descriptions. They're descriptions because no one knows why they are true (when they are). To become science, a testable explanation of the description would be required.
I see you're not getting this, so here's an example. Doctor Dubious invents a new treatment for the common cold. His treatment is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until the patient gets better. Sometimes the treatment takes a week, but it always works — the cold sufferer always recovers. So, why doesn't Doctor Dubious get a Nobel Prize for his breakthrough?
The answer is that the procedure is only a description — shake the gourd, patient recovers — without an explanation, without a basis for actually learning anything or being truthful about the connection between cause and effect. It's the same with psychology.
Nobel Prizewinner Richard Feynman described this kind of pseudoscience in his now-famous article "Cargo Cult Science". In the article, Feynman describes the pseudosciences (he mentions psychology specifically) that go through the motions of science but without the substance, just like the South Sea Islanders who build pretend runways and pretend airplanes, hoping to get real results.
Here is a quote from the article: "So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science."
Feynman goes on to describe in detail how entire "scientific" fields go through the motions of science, but without ever crossing the threshold of real science, science that could demonstrate usefulness instead of simply claiming it without evidence.
This knowledge in itself can be applied by any student that wants to insure he/she will remember their lectures and textbooks.
That's not a verifiable finding until and unless someone tries to explain the result, and then tests the explanation. Are you aware how many psychological results and practices turn out to be examples of the Placebo effect?
So Psychology has produced at least a few hundred papers that are not only insightful, backed by strong empirical evidence and capable of bearing conterfactual predictions - they're also being applied to help humans beings.
Prove it. Prove it using science, not rhetoric. Until those papers become more than descriptions, until they're backed up by tested scientific theory, they're indistinguishable from shaking a dried gourd over psychology's clients.
Astrology can't do any of that.
On the contrary, astrology uses the same methods to achieve the same results. If people doubted the value of astrology, they would refuse to pay for it, just as with psychology. But neither astrology nor psychology has moved beyond description — beyond shaking a dried gourd over a patient — into the realm where we try to explain our results. The realm where we actually discover something about nature and ourselves. The realm where psychologists agree on reliable, tested theoretical principles, as doctors do.