01/20/03: The Face Thing

[juju]

Ok, well here's my serious reply. First, a nice definition of the scientific theory from everything2:

As used by scientists, including those who study evolution, a theory is an empirically verifiable proposition that seeks to explain some portion of reality.

Much of the requirements of theories come from the work of Karl Popper. The first requirement is that a theory be expressed in a way that can be tested. In other words, the theory must be falsifiable using data obtained during some form of observation. Theories should be expressed in the simplest possible terms. Theories that are not falsified may evolve as they are refined. According to Popper, a theory may be considered improved only when the new addition explains more than the flaw or flaws it was intended to address. This is the requirement for parsimony, and is intended to prevent theories from becoming nothing more than a series of patches, like the epicycles in Copernicus and Ptolemy's theories of cosmology, which were finally overturned by Kepler.

The common use of the word theory reduces the term to nothing more than an organized guess. But nothing can rise to the level of theory without presenting a falsifiable proposition. In fact, before a hypothesis may be considered theory, it must have already survived a series of independent experiments. In science theory is a very strong word, quite different from the common usage.

In my experience, psychologists barely ever use empirically verifiable propositions, and they're hardly ever falsifiable. How can you disprove a theory that explains what someone is thinking? How can other people verify that your theory is true? They don't. They just say, "Ok, that must be true, because you have a degree."

In my opinion, pychology involves a hell of a lot of making shit up. How else can you explain the fact that homosexuality was defined as a disorder in the DSM up until 1973? No one did any tests on this theory; they just decided that it must be true because it made sense at the time.

[elSicomoro]

I understand your rationale Wolf, and I agree with it to a point. Mainly on a theoretical basis...for example, there is no objective way to test Maslow...yet.

However, I consider it a science (the same way I consider sociology to be a science) b/c scientific methods are used to support or discredit many theories. Psychology knows that it can't prove the existance of a god, and knows that each tool (correlation, ANOVA, case study, etc.) has its limitations. But it goes about obtaining results as objectively as possible using scientific methods.

Having been a chemistry and biology major before becoming a psych major, I see a lot of similarities in their "behavior." What sets psychology and sociology apart from the physical sciences is as I mentioned earlier--the inability to test some theories. I personally don't think that makes them any less scientific though.

Originally posted by wolf
Oh, and Syc ... I'll see your Bachelors and raise you my Masters ... they are "of Arts" merely as a consequence of the programs we respectively went to. There are schools that offer MS in Clinical Psych as well.

Oh, I know. Had I stayed at SEMO, I would have a B.S., rather than the B.A.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by juju
In my experience, psychologists barely ever use empirically verifiable propositions, and they're hardly ever falsifiable.

Not necessarily true, particularly in the fields of biological and physiological psychology. (You try and do a 12-page research paper on endorphins, trying to reading through 30 or 40 studies...my God, talk about slumberland.)

How can you disprove a theory that explains what someone is thinking? How can other people verify that your theory is true?

Psychology goes beyond just what one is thinking.

But to answer your question, we may be able to explain what someone is thinking using brain function, particularly if we know what part of the brain might cause a particular thinking. It can be measured by a change in brain activity (wave patterns, chemistry changes, etc.).

A good psychological study involves as many participants as are feasible, is as objective as possible, tests a theory in which responses are quantifiable, and tries to show statistical significance. The mere fact that you're dealing with people in many cases is an automatic strike. However...

Let's throw out a rough example here. I want to observe a behavior that has an apparent cause. So, I randomly selected 200 individuals and try to test my theory. To measure the response, I may use something like an increase in BP, heart rate, skin sensors, etc. I also use a control group that will not be exposed to the apparent cause, and their responses will be measured as well. I then use an Analysis of Variance to see what the statistical significance is, and I get a .05. This basically means that there is only a 5% chance of this behavior just randomly occurring (i.e. without the cause). (5% is one standard, an even tougher standard is 1%.)

Granted, there are obvious things that can't be studied or that can't be studied right now. The trick is trying to find the way to study them.

They don't. They just say, "Ok, that must be true, because you have a degree."

That's simply not true, at least to those with knowledge in the subject. I love Maslow's theory of self-actualization, but it has lots of critics. You also have the Freudians, whom I think are one ship short of shipwreck, but are worshipped by others.

Psychology (for good or bad) is able to accomodate divergent views that merit debate, but the winner is the one that can test the theory scientifically. Until then, the debates continue.

The physical sciences can be the same way at times...this could cause cancer...this could cause cancer...no, our theory shows that this could cause cancer, but not that...okay this might not lead to cancer as we originally tested, etc.

Also, take into consideration that a good chunk of psychology involves observation...it has its good and bad points.

In my opinion, pychology involves a hell of a lot of making shit up. How else can you explain the fact that homosexuality was defined as a disorder in the DSM up until 1973? No one did any tests on this theory; they just decided that it must be true because it made sense at the time.

You may find this an interesting read.

Bottom line: study was done, people saw the light, psychoanalysts are stupid. :)

Although, some folks still consider homosexuality a disorder...have you ever heard of "reparative therapy?"

[darclauz]

Originally posted by wolf
Find one of your old psychology textbooks.

Look at it.

[/i]

Stare at it long enough, it may become another kind of book. Maybe one on MAO inhibitors?

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by blowmeetheclown
We used to do that, and it would produce the person's "aura." That is, the person's field of color that surrounds them. I never had a clue as to what any of the colors meant, but it seemed interesting at the time. Stare at anything long enough, and the light surrounding it will eventually tamper with your field of perception (given that you don't blink). Same concept, I'm sure. period. period. (I'm sure the punctuation thing could continue infinitely. period.)

I recall clearly seeing a person's aura as a flash of black, and I didn't have to stare into her eyes to see it. She was just a nasty person in general, so I chalked it up to that.

[darclauz]

i had a boss once... who used the word "bllllllllllllllllleeeennnnddd" a lot and wore bangle bracelets and big flowered skirts...and who tipped her head annoyingly when she talked... tell me that my aura was grey.

she phrased it as a question...a "what's the matter, darlene? your aura is grey!!"

it was THREE days before i was due to leave & get married...the week of my wedding..and she told me my aura was grey.


might has well have told me my preacher wasn't gonna show up.




oh...my preacher didn't show up, BTW.

[juju]

A girl I know from work was telling me yesterday about the time one of her friends took her up in an airplane. She said he was explaining her about all the different cloud formations, and reasons for why they form the shapes they do.

"Oh, well that's really cool.", I said in response.

"It made me sad.", she said, "Because, where's the mystery in that? Now that I know, I can no longer look up in wonderment at the clouds."

I had to laugh. We usually see things the same way, but this really showcased how we view the world differently. I don't think knowing how something works takes away its wonderment at all. If anything, my fascination in increased by knowing more. Imagine needing ignorance to be able to be fascinated by something. (That's not intended in a bad way in case she reads this. She's very smart!)

[Whit]

     It is about perspective. She see's it as complete knowledge, you don't. She's only seeing the result of something she has knowledge of and sees no aditional need for info. You see this information as leading to more. Each answer brings up more questions. Thus to you it's more like the start of the road, to her it's an end.

     I've been in the same situation with stars. Somebody said they used to be so full of wonder about the star before they found out they were huge nuclear fireballs. I thought the idea that each star could be the sun to it's own diverse solar system increased the wonderment I felt. After all, instead of beautiful dots in the night sky they each housed a story of worlds millions of years old. That's more time and more space than my human brain can handle. It wows me, to them it's just gas. Go figure.