sapiens

I disagree with your characterization of science. You seem to be using theory colloquially. In science, theory is not less than fact. Even if you are not intending a hierarchy, theory is not distinct from facts. I mentioned this above.

From your posts, it doesn't seem like you understand what "science" or "scientific" means. (At least in the way any scientist I know that uses those terms). If psychologists employ the scientific method, then the results they obtain employing the scientific method are by definition scientific. I discussed this above as well.

xepherys

Definition of science as listed on Merriam-Webster:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science


Definition of theory as listed on the same:

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

My conclusion from the above information is that science > theory. Speculation or analysis of one thing related to another is not the same as knowing something factually. That's why theory begets knowledge (science) and not the other way around.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

sapiens

To be sure, the human mind is considerably more complex that a skyscraper. However, considering the greater complexity of the mind versus the skyscraper or even considering a comparison of what we know about building a skyscraper versus what we know about the mind does not offer any heuristic value in the assignment of scientific merit.

Generally, I don't rely on merriam-webster if I'm trying to define terms in a specialized area of knowledge, but even with the colloquial definition offered you can see at least the "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, etc." In the definition of "science" above, theory is what creates that system of knowledge described in definition 3. Even that does not adequately cover the role of theory in science. I refer again to my description of theory and the scientific method above.

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".

xepherys

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

Uhm... what?

Let me just quote the following, because it pretty much sums it up. From yet another Wikipedia entry:

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.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

DaveOrion

Nice try xepherys, but you cant reason with the unreasonable. You cant make those who are always right, wrong, and you certainly cant bestow knowledge upon those with unlimited ego. It aint happening & it never will.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

xepherys

*sigh*

Apparently the upper echelons are the people in soft science. At least at the TFP. I've really tried not to be on the offensive, but when I get told what "theory" generally means in science, like I'd have no clue myself, I get a bit miffed. Still love ya Will... just saying...

Perhaps the difference between hard and soft science is proven here. "Hard" scientists know science... "soft" scientists want to grow up to be "hard" scientists someday? I'm just kidding. I promise!

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

For the longest time, Newtonian physics was LAW. Now? It's outdated and simplistic compared to what has been developed since. What, then, is a law that can be broken by progress? Why, it's a theory. Like the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity; they are considered factual, but that could eventually change. And that's the wonderful part of science; it has no ego. If old science is proven wrong, new science takes it's place and science as a whole improves. It always takes steps forward and, so long as it's left out of the hands of fundamentalists, never takes steps back.

From wiki:
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis[, but in] science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

That sounds dangerously close to the description I posted: "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"

DaveOrion

Gee Will, its almost like you paraphrased wiki..........Na, I know you'd never do that, but so many of your posts sound very familiar.......almost like you paraphrased me.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

xepherys

Theory IS a model based on observation, but it is not yet fact. Theory graduates to fact once it has been widely established as such.

Also, The basics of Newtonian physics, specifically regarding the laws of motion are, in fact, still laws. They are exactly as applicable today as they were at their birth. Can you show me a link stating that the laws of motion, or specifically the law of inertia that I posted, has been broken, changed or otherwise made obsolete? An object at rest continues to be at rest until energy is expended against it. When did this stop being true?

EDIT: In the face of specificity, let's replace "Can you show me a link stating that the laws of motion..." with, "Can you prove that the laws of motion...".

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

Still tilting at windmills? That must be frustrating.

DaveOrion

I Still Love you Will. One day you may wake up & smell reality.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

xepherys

Hmmm, I must say that this is the most apt use of the phrase I may have ever seen. Whatever issues I may take with your chosen course of studies, your vocabulary never ceases to delight!

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Sion

Except for the 492 "serious problems".

"FDA statistics show that between 600,000 and 700,000 people (70% of them children or adolescents) are being treated with Ritalin. Between 1980 and 1987, the latest period for which statistics are available, the FDA received 492 complaints of serious problems resulting from the drug. The agency said this level of complaints indicates the drug is safe."

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

Willravel

Newton's Laws of Motion are simply consequences of quantum theory. Quantum theory is where the real "laws" would come from, only it's theory. Thus, the axioms presented by Newton are now outdated. And that's a good thing. If I'm ever lucky enough to formulate a hypothesis that stands up to the scientific method and becomes a theory, I hope that eventually a more perfect theory will be formulated and science will advance.

I particularly love using it on TFP.

I appreciate that, but I'd like to see the follow up investigations into these complaints before I assume that they are symptomatic of anything but phantom problems.

"My son has become lethargic", for example, may have nothing to do with Ritalin, but rather diet. "My son had an allergic reaction" may simply mean he was never tested for allergies to medication. You know how I discovered I was allergic to Codeine? I was given it as a child. And you can bet my mother complained. I'm not saying their all wrong, but it's better not to assume they're all legitimate.

xepherys

Since quantum theory is just that, a theory, and the laws of motions are... wait for it... laws, I think it's too early to say that the Laws of Motion have been superseded by quantum theory.

When GM puts out a new body style for the Corvette, it it obsolete as soon as a designer takes pen to paper and doodles a new body style? What about when engineers make a clay mockup? What about when the concept version comes out? Personally, I would say that the first is not obsolete until you can buy the second.

When Quantum Mechanics becomes Quantum Law, perhaps Newton's shall be superceded. Even then, it is never no longer law. It is simply law that has been added to. It's not replaced.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

sapiens

Ugh. I lost a long post. I really need to write my posts in word first.

1. Fact != Truth. There is always doubt.

2. Laws are not indisputable. There is always doubt and always the possibility of falsification no matter how small.

3. Theories in a scientific sense are not less than facts. They are different from facts. It is not ridiculous. Theories in a conversational, colloquial sense are less than facts, but I'm not talking about the colloquial definition.

4. The scientific method applied to the investigation of natural phenomena presumably leads to scientific knowledge. Yes?

5. There is a epistemological framework that supports the scientific method. In my reference to determinism, empiricism, and falsifiability, I was speaking to that framework.

6. Independent of our limited perception of the universe, there is an assumption of determinism in the effort to identify the underlying causes of phenomena in the physical universe.

6. You could employ the scientific method to investigate clothing preferences. Your decision to wear boxers versus briefs may not be scientific, but the investigation of the decision-making processes that underlies clothing choice may be. It's not an insult to scientists.

That's it for now.

Martian

492 out of the lowball 600 000 estimate is still less than one in a thousand users. Given that just about any drug has the potential to cause 'serious problems,' I'd say that's pretty damn good.

Figure 600 000 out of the entire US population (~300 million) is one in five hundred. Out of those one in five hundred, one in a thousand may have serious issues. So the actual statistic is one in five hundred thousand. If you live in a medium sized city, there may be one person who has a serious adverse reaction to ritalin. Compared to some drugs, that's damn near miraculous.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

A law can be disproved (or in this case replaced) by a theory.

Edit: I'm glad to have Sapiens and Martian in this. I felt like i was taking crazy pills for a moment there. And yes, pun intended.

Martian

The laws of motion aren't disproved, precisely. It would be more accurate to say that they are a less accurate model. Quantum theory is only really practical when dealing with really small stuff. It has repercussions involving big stuff, but for the most part, when dealing with real-world applications Newton is close enough.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

sapiens

What kind of argument is this? There are formal arguments about what constitutes a theory, independent of what merriam-webster or wikipedia or you or I say. People who have certainly thought about it more than I have. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of Imre Lakatos or Karl Popper. Roachboy would probably know more about it than I know.

xepherys

From this link

Okay, let me restate a few things. I've already stated (in this thread I believe) that I feel a good scientist understand that he doesn't understand everything. There is ALWAYS room to question, precisely because you never know when something relevant and substantially different may come up.

HOWEVER, some things are, in fact, fact. We know that gravitation exists. We know not the cause of the effect, but we can verify the effect time and time again. Gravity is a fact. When a mathematical principle is created to stand it up, this becomes scientific law. It is both universally provable, and mathematically describable. You can have something that is mathematically describable, but NOT universally provable (say relativity) and hence a theory is born.

Why is the Theory of Relativity still a theory? Well, let's take it apart. You have general and special relativity, yes? Inside of general relativity, you have time dilation (or a form of it, I think there are more than one) that has been experimentally proven. You also have Rotational Frame Dragging, which has NOT been proven, and experiments run today to study it such as Gravity Probe B. Since it remains unproven in reality, though "proven" mathematically, it is not a fact or law but a theory.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Sion

And I'd point out that if you are making ANY kind of assumptions without detailed knowledge of the specifics of the case, then you are not being very scientific. (light-hearted jab)


Ok, several other things that have come to mind:

with regard to the hard vs soft nature of certain branches of science: perhaps a better terminology would be accuracy and/or precision. the "hard" sciences have, over hundreds or even thousands of years, developed a vary high level of precision. the "soft" sciences, because they are still in their infancy, so to speak, do not yet have that same level of precision.

examples: engineering, particularly civil and mechanical, has been studied and practiced for literally thousands of years. social/behavioral sciences, like psychology and psychiatry, have been studied and practiced for maybe a hundred fifty years or so. even medical science has only been studied in a scientific manner for a few hundred years.

as a result of this huge age difference in these various disciplines, there is, naturally, a huge difference in the level of precision that has been attained therein. as was pointed out earlier, there are few, if any, unknown variables in the construction of a building. on the other hand, treating depression (or any other psychiatric/psychologic illnesses) is still somewhat of a guessing game (albeit an educated guess) due to the fact that there are so many unknowns when it come to the mind and brain. this is not a criticism of psychology and the social sciences, but rather a simple statement of (and I hope you'll pardon the use of the term) fact.

of course, there are some who might say that the social sciences will never reach the same level of precision, due to the inherent unpredictability of the human species. the question here is: do we simply not know enough about ourselves to predict human behavior to the same level of precision that we can in predicting how a building will stand up to wind/rain/earthquakes/etc, or are humans simply and inherently unpredictable? I tend to think that there is a certain level of unpredictability to humanity that no science will ever be able overcome.

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

Willravel

Why is everyone always so surprised when I have to mention that Psychology's genesis was actually metaphysics and epistemology, which date back to Aristotle. That's about 2400 years ago. That predates the scientific method by about 1400 years. Psychology is not a young science. Neurology is a young science. Quantum physics is a young science.

Leaving that alone, even if psychology was 14 years old that would not make it any more or less viable. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The proof is in every person who has had their mental health improved by people who understand the science of psychology. The proof is in documented successes and improvements of methodology. The proof is in an ever more complete understanding of human mental processes and behavior.

xepherys

I'd say because that's a stretch. First of all, many philosophies and probably many sciences can draw roots to epistemology. In fact, regardless of organized epistemology, the concept must predate any science or organized knowledge by the very nature of what it encompasses. Saying that psychology's genesis was partly epistemology is like saying that cable TVs genesis was partly rooted in ancient theatre. The line can certainly be drawn, but it's a relatively thin one.

As for metaphysics, well... now you're burning yourself. The word metaphysical translates to afterlife or directly to after physical, as in after or beyond our physical selves. It was generally construed as beginning as a way to think about our ties to the universe and the ultimate "why are we here" questions. In the more modern aspect, metaphysics is often associated with occult dealings and considered pseudo-science. Even in merrier times for metaphysics, it has been fraught with naysayers, many with good arguments about it's limited application or testable conclusions (metaphysics is much more philosophy than science and doesn't adhere particularly well to scientific method). It also often circles back to determinism, which I still contest is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

From my perspective you are now making a statement similar to me saying that astrophysics evolved from astrology, simply because the stars were often the focus. At any rate, I would say that either all science or no science is rooted in epistemology... depending on your perspective.

Perhaps those windmills are yours for the jousting, Quixote?

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

Okay, I'll get more specific. Psychology as a science (and not philosophy) was basically developed in the Middle East around 930 AD with Al-Fârâbî when he formulated axioms about the causes of social and political behavior of individuals. He also separated out innate behavior from learned behavior. While his methodology was crude even compared to Freud, what he developed over 1000 years ago was much more science than it was philosophical guesswork.

ubertuber

It's interesting that you venerate people as the fathers of psychology who were wrong about nearly everything: Aristotle and Freud.

I'm trying think of parallels in the other sciences, but I think they mostly hold up people who we believe to have been accurate in their thinking.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

Why would it be interesting that I venerate the father of modern psychology or possibly the greatest philosopher (maybe even thinker) in history? They had to be wrong first so that someone else could build on them and be right. Then those people are built on, then them. That's science. Besides, they both broke ground in ways that are very rare in scientific development. That earns my eternal veneration.

BTW, Aristotle was also arguably the first actual physicist.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/3494

ubertuber

I think it's interesting because it strikes me as dissimilar to the way that people in other sciences talk about their prominent figures.

I'm not saying that it means anything in particular, just that it is striking.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

How would a astro-physicist consider Galileo? How would any physicist consider Newton? How would a biologist consider Darwin? How would a chemist consider Boyle? They're all fathers of science, who made either the first step or the first big step in the right direction. I'm not going to worship them, but their contributions to our progress as a species in understanding the universe is a big deal.

sapiens

I think that it's strange to call someone the father of a field of study. Freud was a popular figure both in some areas of psychology and in western society generally. However, if I was going to name a father of psychology, I wouldn't name him. I'd probably give that title to Wilhelm Wundt. He started the first psychological laboratory.

I think that people give too much credence to Freud's ideas today. It's beyond veneration. He was important to the history of psychology, but the field has progressed. To apply much of his perspective today is akin to using the Bohr model of the atom to understand chemistry or physics.

EDIT: I suppose you might call Freud the father of clinical psychology, but even in that field, I might choose someone like Charcot.

roachboy

actually, sapiens, that's a very anglo perspective. in the francophone world, for example, psychoanalysis has a very different position than it does in anglo-world. there's nothing that explains it in principle--it follows from other factors, curious historical/ideological factors. it's yet another of those factoids that makes a mess of stories of progress as a single trajectory.

on the other hand, i think you're probably right about the role wundt played in "founding" psychology as a discipline--but the process was obviously diffuse, both spatially and temporally. it's not like one fine day folk woke up, looked around and saw a new Form floating about the aether than structured their lives as epiphenomena.
"hey...what's that?"
"i dunno, duane: it says 'psychology.'"
"has that always been here?"
"must have been..."

we like to naturalize categories.
naturalizing them seems to make repetition easier.
if you think about it, no discursive space is more amenable to this naturalizing of categories than is meta-discussions about the status of science.
well, maybe there are others more amenable.
if i could count them, i'd be making a "hard" claim.
but i'm a teddy bear.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sapiens

I was hesitant to name a "father" of a field, but Wundt often gets stamped with that label.

What aspect of my statement was anglo-centric? I know that psychoanalysis is still popular in many fields in America. I imagine it is elsewhere as well. Many people I know in film studies use it. From my experience, it doesn't seem to generate testable hypotheses or lead to effective treatment methods.

roachboy

it's not a big deal--but in france, psychoanalysis occupies a very different institutional space than it does in anglo-world. i could trot out a little history of it, but i'm not sure how interesting it is. anyway, the anglo-debate about psychoanalysis came down to a simple question--whether a theoretical viewpoint that directed analytic attention to the unconscious could generate falsifiable propositions. from one viewpoint, the "object" is problematic a priori if repeatability of results (which is the basis for falsifiability) is a defining criterion which separates "science" from its others--but another direction can use the same argument to pose questions about the limitations imposed on understanding of the world through this narrow understanding of "science"

the curious thing is that freud (obviously) developed and relied upon symptomologies and a particular range of interpretive frameworks to orient psychoanalytic practice---these frames would be tested through their usage--so they are in a sense falsifiable on their own terms. but this apparently violates assumptions about the relation of theory to practice in general. this seems weak, however---the stronger (and more problematic) argument then is that a focus on the unconscious a priori means that you aren't "doing science". this is an anglo-debate almost entirely--like there's some kind of anxiety about philosophical complexity--so "science" becomes about the reduction of complexity, at least at the level of definition of analytic object.

in france, this debate didn't happen in anything like the same way.

basically, the boundary between the natural and human sciences is not defended with the same neurotic fervor as you find in anglo-world.
psychoanalysis can yield effective treatment regimens within certain contexts and potentially important insights into how cognition operates, how perception operates--by enabling something to be understood about the nature of association--which is the basic mechanism for making meaning.

if you wanted to explain why this divergence happened, and in messageboard form had to point to something because you can do it quickly more than because it's accurate, i'd say the fact that philosophy occupies a very different institutional space within the french educational system has certain effects, and the relative openness at the natural/human sciences boundary may be one of them. this without idealizing one context over the other, btw. they diverge, that's all.
differences follow.
there we are.

so from this kind of viewpoint (one informed by both debates, i suppose) the anglo-version of "science" explains quite alot about the development of that particular region of psychology, what it can do and what it can't do, the kind of questions it can address and the kinds of questions it won't address.

on a related note, i'm not so sure about the dismissal of psychoanalysis out of hand--but i'm also not so sure about its embrace either. i think it's one of a wide range of ways of thinking about being-in-the-world--like any it's differentially useful.

blech. messageboards and the need for shortness.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sapiens

Roachboy: Generally, I don't have a problem with the investigation of unconscious processes. I do agree that in the history of psych in America, many psychologists looked at investigations of the unconscious with disdain (at least until the 60s and 70s). I don't understand how psychoanalysis can be demonstrated falsifiable on its own terms. Are you referring to therapeutic outcomes? I haven't seen much evidence that psychoanalysis yields effective treatment regimens.

roachboy

i should maybe have said that p/a constructs and interpretive procedures are falsifiable in a general sense--but in the context of therapeutic practice. the point was kinda crushed into the remark about p/a operating with a different relation of theory to praxis than most straighter sciences.

on efficacy--i think the regimen can work for folk, but from the outset the notion of a "cure" in p/a was not the same as you'd find in a more medicalized discipline. the backbone of the process is a such that it's more about repetition/recognition/shifting one's relations to one's own symptoms than it is about locating some chemical imbalance and administering a drug to alter it. there are a bunch of consequences that follow from this--among them is that a "cure" can be itself transient and a problem later. but i suppose that can be true of any number of things.

as for whether one approach is better than another--i think the question is meaningless. in alleviating suffering, whatever works works, yes? in some situations, chemical treatments are necessary, but they are rarely if ever free-standing. they require the more nebulous therapeutic forms to take. maybe this division repeats the natural/human sciences division.

i find little at stake in all this, myself. genre boundaries are best defended by folk with tofu to fry in the matter. i don't mean by this that everything is everything else, but more that working to establish a clear boundary between a scientific and non-scientific undertaking is not terribly interesting. to my mind, really, it's all philosophy using different formal languages, different procedures operative in different communities each of which has its own internal patterns of legitimation.

another way: i like that bridges don't fall down.
but i don't see anything in the question of whether x or y is a "science"-and even less in whether x or y is a "hard" or "soft" science that impacts on whether bridges do or do not fall down.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sapiens

Absolutely. I just question whether it works.


For me, the decision if there is one isn't between psychoanalysis and a pill, but between psychoanalysis, the many other forms of treatment, and a pill.

Willravel

I'm using the term loosely. I'm also using the best known names instead of the more apt names.

roachboy

sapiens: in the states, psychoanalysis is amongst a range of therapeutic options that you, as consumer driven by whatever to see in therapy a way to maybe make your life easier to have, can choose or not choose. there are lots of types of p/a to choose from. were you in france, you'd have a different, more extensive set of alternatives, a different sense of what was entailed, a different sense of relative success rates ,etc. these things--institutionalization/relative rates of success--are circular.

personally, i am agnostic about it as a therapeutic framework.

i'm way less agnostic about the present state of affairs that seems to obtain in the land of hmo-covered treatments, though, in the context of which it seems almost inevitable (and if my cadre of friends/acquaintances is any indication, inevitable) that meds are substituted for the "messier" track of therapy itself. for cost-effective reasons no doubt--but this also seems to me a way in which the implications of this "hard"/"soft" science nonsense surfaces, generally without any upside for the folk whose treatment is impacted by it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KnifeMissile

I feel as if I have died and fallen into hell. There are some really poor descriptions of science in this thread. There's too many for me to respond to all of them but most have been perpetrated by xepherys so I'll respond to some of his claims...

Why do you insist on running to a dictionary as an authority on meaning? Admittedly, I do the same when engaged in colloquial language but it's not a good idea to do so when talking about specific fields, like science. Every organized endeavor has its own jargon and science is no exception. Compare the dictionary meaning of displacement with the physical definition, for an example...

Are you a creationist now?!

First of all, theories will never ever "graduate" to fact. That's not how the term is used. Do you think we doubt that atoms exist? If not then why is it still called the atomic theory? Theories don't even "graduate" to laws. Do you really think that we ever referred to Newton's theories of motion? ...or the theories of thermodynamics? That's not how the term is used...

This leads to my second point, which is that scientific "laws" aren't really any different than scientific "theories." Like in English, synonyms exist in science and that's what these two words are. The use of the term "law" in science came into vogue at a time when science (particularly physics) was starting to mature rapidly but wasn't, itself, well studied. Back then, scientists had romantic notions of "unlocking the secrets of the Universe!" They felt that they were discovering absolute and final truths about how the Universe worked and so some principles seemed to warrant the title of law.

Of course, science has matured quite a bit since then and is now a little more formalized. The three laws of thermodynamics didn't really make sense without the zeroeth law, Newton's second law of motion isn't true in the general sense and the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, can be temporarily violated. Hell, the first law of thermodynamics is just a special case of conservation of energy so how is it really so fundamental?

Scientific laws tend to be more axiomatic and descriptive than scientific theories but what is labelled a "law" or a "theory" is mostly aesthetic. They are both tentative descriptions of how we think the Universe works and they are really no different from each other.

In science, "fact" is synonymous with "observation."

Again, theories will never be "graduated" to "laws" or "facts", regardless of how much evidence or apparent truth is behind them. The terms are simply not used that way. By the way, there is no part of special relativity that hasn't been demonstrable. In every way, it appears to be true...

Actually, the word "metaphysics" translates literally to "after physics," denoting Aristotle's work that came after his work on physics. The word is currently used as you describe it but your etymology was simply wrong...


Actually, I'm surprised I didn't have more to say. There's probably much more to comment on but this thread was so painful to read that I don't think I can bear to read it over again...