Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
Sure, I can compare them. I can also compare the methods used by a PhD in physics to the methods used by a Phd in a social science.
|
Because they are both sciences? Because they use methods? Can you compare, with any accurate variables, an MD to a JD? Law uses methods. I don't consider law to be science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
I would say that therapist does not necessarily equal scientist. Also, MD does not necessarily equal scientist.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
What is "greater education"? What kind of education do you think is required to get each degree? How can "greater education", regardless of what it means, be a measurement of scientific virtue?
|
I agree that a degree does not equal anything other than satisfactory course completion. PhD, MD, JD, MS, BA... it's all just letters attached to a piece of paper. Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot even using degrees in this argument at all. I think that argument was being used to justify the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist and maybe got a bit out of context.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm going to cut you off here. I spent 4 years of my life studying psychology, and Sapien a lot more. My mother has her own private practice. While I appreciate that you may be an expert on many things, you seem to be a bit out of your element on this one.
|
I'm not making an argument based on the principles themselves of psych, but rather the objectivity of the whole as opposed to other sciences. Perhaps neither of us are "experts" on that as a whole as I don't believe any of us here have been properly educated on the majority of each science separately.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
I think that some of the fundamental ingredients of the scientific method are
1. Determinism: The universe is orderly. Events have meaningful, systematic causes
2. Empiricism: Events in the world can be best understood via observation.
3. Falsifiability: A good account of an event should generate testable hypotheses.
A bit of an aside: A theory is not “just a theory” or “simply a theory”. It’s not a “best guess”. Theories are tools. Tools employed by scientists to understand their domain of inquiry. A good theory accounts for and organizes existing knowledge and generates testable hypotheses and predictions, leading us to new domains of knowledge.
|
First of all, and maybe it's just semantics, but the scientific method is what it is, there are pretty well agreed-upon steps, like what I listed above. It's what's been taught in secondary schools for decades and what's been taught at the university level, at least in the engineering and most recently physics programs I've been in. While you may have extrapolated those "fundamental ingredients" there are still very defined steps that are taken in a defined order. That is the only definition of the scientific method.
Also, a theory is "just a theory" in light of it not being fact. The theory is generally built on existing facts or other strong theories. A great example of that is string theory which is a sidestep of quantum theory. Both are important, both have a lot of work being done on them (well, not so much string theory these days), but both are "just theories". They are not fact. There is little or no proven data supporting that majority of the claims of either. Theory < Fact... arguing otherwise seems rather ridiculous.
Also, "1. Determinism: The universe is orderly. Events have meaningful, systematic causes" isn't based in full reality. You have to take it with the grain of salt that we only perceive a subsection of the universe, both physically and spatially. Quantum mechanics both proves and disproves determinism depending on the study, scientist, paper or test you read about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
If they both employ the scientific method, or purport to, we can compare them.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's science if it follows the scientific method, which it does.
|
So, anytime the scientific method is put to use, the result is a part of some science? This seems absurd to me. The scientific method is a method that can be applied to other things, including application. I could use the scientific method to determine what shirt I might wear today. It doesn't make my clothing decision science. If you believe it does, than your definition of science is wildly broad and pretty much insulting to scientists.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I believe very firmly that psychology and psychiatry enjoy less than favorable reputations which are not deserved as they're not based in fact but rather hearsay, rumor, and innuendo. After spending 4 years of my life devoted to developing my understanding of the science of psychology, I see no reason to believe it compares unfavorably to any other science. All I see here is more of the same unverified claims.
|
Despite my vehement arguing in this thread, I've also stated that I don't think psych is a "bad" thing. I just believe it operates on hypothesis far more often than fact, and therefore it's not a "hard" science. This whole thing devolved from the topic of "hard" vs. "soft" sciences.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Xeph, "theory" in science has a common usage meaning "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena" or something to that effect. In other words, all of science is theory. There is no fact. What you probably meant to say is "hypothesis".
|
Uhm... what?
Let me just quote the following, because it pretty much sums it up.
From yet another Wikipedia entry:
Quote:
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.
|
Generally when a
scientific law is established, it is so done out of fact. The
law of inertia, the
law of universal gravitation, et cetera... these are facts. They may not be wholly understood, but they are universally recognized as indisputable and are wholly repeatable ad infinitum. I hate to keep referencing Wikipedia, but it's generally a decent source.
Lastly, I would like to say that it is my opinion that in psychiatry, there is far greater use of empirical method than scientific method. Perhaps the two are being confused? The Oxford English Dictionary states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment"... that pretty much sums up psychiatry. Perhaps it's a hybrid of empirical and scientific method?
EDIT: Okay, perhaps SOLELY is a bit strong. I can see it being a hybrid of empirical and scientific, but there are many, MANY unknown variables patient to patient. There are virtually no unknown variables (approaching zero, where it should be) in building a building.