Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
I'm going to have to disagree with you Will. Personally I think Psychology and Psychiatry are bunk. Here's why...
Every mind is different. This is both from the aspect of physiological chemical makeup to the aspect of beliefs, feelings and cultural/environmental differences. To suspect that x + y = z in anything more than a tiny portion of the world's population makes very little sense logically. Sure, there are some things that brain science has down pat, such as areas of the brain that perform certain functions and specific brain chemicals that regulate emotions and moods. The larger picture, however, is just that... larger. Far too large for modern psychology to be anything more than a whim. Much like "modern" medicine was 100 years ago. In another century or so, I think that will change drastically. For now it's a few notches higher on the science pyramid than phrenology.
|
Your statement regarding phrenology and a science pyramid reflects the hard/soft characterization I made earlier. Your statements generally seem to reflect a limited understanding of modern psychiatry and psychology.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
therapist != scientist
|
I would say that therapist does not necessarily equal scientist. Also, MD does not necessarily equal scientist.
Quote:
|
Well, obviously you CAN. I can compare turds to flying pigs. It doesn't make it a useful comparison. I would think there'd be a higher level of contrast than comparison. But this is pretty much the stereotype from which came the saying "apples to oranges".
|
If they both employ the scientific method, or purport to, we can compare them.
Quote:
|
Hard sciences tend to work in theories and proofs. Soft sciences tend to work simply in theories. At least from my perception. There are certainly "proofs" in biology, but they seem much more fluid. There are a lot of things we don't understand about, say, subatomic mechanics. There are far FEWER things we understand about genetics (to this day).
|
Again, I think that your hard/soft distinction doesn't work. Theories and proofs versus "simply theories"? Independent of how you could possible measure "how much we understand" in one field versus another, the amount of knowledge amassed by field is independent of the methods used to acquire knowledge.
A different topic: This thread is about scientific thinking. How do people define scientific thinking or the scientific method?