http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/clarke-institute.html

Quote"Could someone explain to me how this is different from  ->-bleeped-<-?"

This is the gaping flaw in BBL's logic. Observed phenomena do not prove the legitimacy of the diagnostic category. They simply can't get that through their heads because they need the diagnosis to be real.

This is exactly my problem with mixing govt. and a philosophical belief like Psychology.

It is a philosophy because it does not follow the scientific method. Part of the scientific method is that results have to be reproduceable in order to be accepted as genuine theorys. Psychology does not follow this and as a result tends to implement the opinions of the psychologist or psychiatrist as actual fact or having some scientific or medical basis, when they are in fact just personal opinions.

The results of following the scientific method have to be predictable and reproduceable.

The results of psychology and psychiatry are not.

With respect to those here who either are psychologists or actively belive in the philosophy: This sort of thing needs to end.

A philisophical belief has no place intermingling with government and public funding.

Sara

Yes this insitute is currently called Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. If you live in Canada particularly Ontario, and your dr doesn't know much about trans issues you will most likley be sent there.  I got a call from them one morning under there new alias, it didn't make me happy.

I met Dr Lawrence once, at a meeting. I introduced myself and had a brief friendly conversation. I found her to be tense and defensive. Maybe for good reason. Some people that I respect, like and respect her. So, I can respectfully disagree with her, after honest examination of her points.
Namaste, Tara

Its possible to do psychology and psychiatry in a scientific context,
the problem is that due to the difficulties of creating experiments
it only gives very small localized answers that
cannot apply to clinical cases as a whole.

In a scientific experiement, insuring that what you see is truly caused
by one factor and none other is crucial and very very hard to do
in some cases.

A normal person's psyche is under the influence of
thousands of factors most of them interdependent; its not
that its impossible to study, its just too expensive and
resource intensive in the current context.

That of course drives psychologists and all other in social
sciences batty, they, like all of us want answers... And
if they can't have certainties, they'll settle on
the most plausible according to their own point of view.
With no reality to bounce against like hard science, this
point of view can skew wildly in any direction, especially
in small closed fields which don't have much new ideas
coming in.

Quote from: Keira on January 18, 2008, 02:58:03 PM

Its possible to do psychology and psychiatry in a scientific context,
the problem is that due to the difficulties of creating experiments
it only gives very small localized answers that
cannot apply to clinical cases as a whole.

In a scientific experiement, insuring that what you see is truly caused
by one factor and none other is crucial and very very hard to do
in some cases.

A normal person's psyche is under the influence of
thousands of factors most of them interdependent; its not
that its impossible to study, its just too expensive and
resource intensive in the current context.

That of course drives psychologists and all other in social
sciences batty, they, like all of us want answers... And
if they can't have certainties, they'll settle on
the most plausible according to their own point of view.
With no reality to bounce against like hard science, this
point of view can skew wildly in any direction, especially
in small closed fields which don't have much new ideas
coming in.

I agree with you 100%.
Which is why it shouldn't recieve public funding IMHO.
Unpredictable results is not a good public investment.

Sarah, you may be perfectly correct in everything you say. But, for honesty's sake shouldn't you also 'own' your own personal experiences and say exactly why you are so damning of psychology and psychiatrists?

As you so rightly point out, there are numerous reasons that psychology is not, nor is it likely to become a 'hard science.' Neuro-biology and neuro-psychology and psycho-pharmacology are much 'harder,' but even in 'hard scientific' experiments these days we are finding that its hard to isolate everything that might contribute one result or another to the results of experiment.

Many instances exist of 'hard scientists' skewing results with their own personal outlooks and prejudices. But I don't see anyone suggesting that because X was a racists, for instance, that his biology was flawed. Although there is certainly scope to find that sometimes that might well be true.

Most things are rather more complex than a lot of what is said in these threads tends to convey. Finding answers is often a very personal and totally 'prejudiced' matter of what this or that individual's comfort level is.

N~

But, Nichole, the problem with your mention of that hard scientist who skewed result,
is that reality makes it certain that someone else will come along and invalid his bad
results.

Most hard science areas have hundreds of people working on variants of one
issue and its unlikely all those people share a common point of view since these
fields while closed to the general public, are quite open to the science community at large.

The problem with social science is that everybody can be right if they can write convincingly
enough about a subject; how can sources even be usefull if each inject their point of view. It becomes a house of cards after a while. Say you think a document has 95% of being right using the sources it has and argumentation he uses  (pretty good you think). Well, since those sources each are uncertain and use themselves uncertain sources, etc. At the end, of the probability tree for this document you may end up with a 55% chance of it being right! Might as well, flip a coin!

I think in fact that science should be removed from the name
because there's not much scientific about the whole thing. If people knew that those subjects
should be approached not like a science but by looking at who's involved, the quality of the sources, and the political dynamics of the field, then there would be less misunderstanding about results of those study areas. People would use the results as loose guidelines for actions instead of thinking their written in stone.

After 100 years?, 25? 50? What if the scientist who made the invalid experiment were a very prominent one? -- Much as you would like to make the 'hard sciences' immune from the same sort of human foible that we all admit is very possible in 'soft sciences,' I don't think we can do so.

Consider for a moment the pharmaceutical companies and their 'researchers.'  You know of anyone who might work for a paycheck there? Who might 'stuff' evidence that something wasn't as safe as Bayer said it was?

Oil and the environment, nuclear, medical doctors by droves. Fact is that most science begins with a conclusion in mind and then works toward that conclusion. Often ignoring or simply removing elements not useful to 'proving' what is proven.

Your faith in the numbers doing the work, while touching, is hardly reassuring if all those people are working for the same corporation. Or even a competing one.

I think what we lose track of is that the 'new' priests are sometimes the 'scientific community' and the 'scientific method.'  'Hard' sciences are as subject to human fallibility as is any other human enterprise. Your 'faith' doesn't seem different in kind from much of any other faith, Keira.

Science tends toward proving in many instances what it wishes to prove. As a chemist you may say, for instance that my Vioxx will cause a lot of damage and it may take 10 years for any meaningful discovery to occur that would show that. Simply because I will try, and succeed if my pharmaceutical is big and bad enough, to suppress that information and discredit you.

Purity of intention and result is contingent not on the 'pure researcher,' but on those that pay for the research. A major difficulty in any 'science.' People work for money. They are amenable to being influenced by desiring a paycheck. 3M, DuPont, Dow: need I go on?

To argue that 'hard science' is somehow purer is like an argument that the Pope for instance is a better 'holder' of the keys to the kingdom than the Patriarch of Constantinople or Alexandria.

In reality, most human endeavors are based on fallibility and a willingness to claim outlandish benefits from things that remain remarkably unproven. Much science remains a matter of human prejudice and desire. It is no more 'pure' than is the Love Canal.

Nichole

Some of these I agree with, however I think some additional perspective is also needed.

The Pharma companies make no secret usually about how much research they do about their drugs. (very little) Usually thougth the FDA approves them anyway.

In this situation I think the corruption of the FDA and the LArge use of Pharma propaganda is the issue, nopt the science they use. They often know their drugs are dangerous and have the science to back it up.

With the oil companies, they use true hard science, they just ignore the science that is not good for thier business model. Such as climate change. Big oil is hardly a Scientific Body though. Their science is good. They use it (Geology mostly) to find oil. They dont use metorology or climatology or any of the other Geo Sciences because they already know what those sciences have found. They know that oil is unsustainable but they don't care, they are making loads of money. Plus they use huge ammounts of propaganda and lobby money to press their cause. Propaganda is not science though.


I guess what I am saying is that the Geology that the Oil Companies use is acurate.

The Biochemistry that the Pharma Companies ususaly use is accurate, but they don't report all findings, and the FDA goes along with that. It's a conflict of interest to test a drug in house anyway. I think this practice should be stopped.

The 'science' of Psychology is accurate about 50% of the time no matter who uses it. Sometimes less, sometimes even more.
It is the use itself that is broken, not the people who use it.

The methods of Geology are sound. So are Biochemistry. Corruption is an organization specific problem.

The methods of Psychology are not sound. They are unpredictable regardless of who uses them.

This is the issue.
There is no such thing as a 'soft science' as far as I am concerned.
There is science and then there are things that use the scientific method when they see fit.
Psychology is the latter.

No, Sarah, they are unsafe and inhuman when used in the way they were used on you -- to force you into behavioral patterns that were more acceptable to those who raised you.

But, that, imo, isn't psychology at all, but a behavioral boot-camp that employed methods that were heartless and cruel. As you can see, I have no argument with that at all.

And my point about science is exactly what you have stated: that usage makes a lot of the argument. Science cannot be separated in some idealistic fashion from the purposes for which it is used. The economic power of Dow Chemical or DuPont or Microsoft is damned important and cannot be separated as though it was somehow some nasty bit of sludge that affixed itself to the toes of the pure and sublime scientists who work for it.

Context does have a great deal of importance. And that I find does indeed apply to misogyny and social class and a host of other difficulties involved where someone wants to say: but that wasn't ME. No, but it could well be.



Nichole

I think in fact that science should be removed from the name because there's not much scientific about the whole thing.

No more calls, we have a winner.  The basic outcome of science is prediction.  If you can't predict (and duplicate the experiment) it can't be science.

Nichole, as a whole, science is sound and more impartial than probably anything out there.

Pharma companies barely do any science, they're marketing outfits.

Many people have a very bizarro view of science and who does it.

Most scientist don't make lots of money and they do it for the challenge and recognition
in their field. There is a massive ammount of competition.

Also, applied science, which is akin to engineering is a totally different
thing than those done my those in fundamental science.

Applied science is interested in efficiency, volume, cost, which obviously are
business concerns. This is also the kind of science that's often done behind
closed door and is subject to patents. This is what most people think of
as science and most people coming out of university who have science
related degrees work in applied science. Those are most corrupt
and misuse science here
are seldom the scientists or engineers themselves, but the ones
that use them to reach their means. Its rare that an biochemist will
be a CEO or even a VP.

So most theoretical physics is not science, tekla? Do we have a lot of predictive experimentation going using black holes and 'string'? 

And I am just so embarrassed, Keira, to discover that scientists are working their little bums off in their basements for no pay. And here some of my acquaintances have been calling themselves scientists with in the employ of those pharmaceutical companies.

*sigh* What a rude awakening this is. So the Curie's are the model for today's scientists. All those researchers in the employ of universities where they work on particular ideas that are paid for by grants from large corps are really just doing this for the good of humanity?


Where does one find these curious and selfless souls?
Please.

I have no particular interest except that if one is going to call a spade a spade that that person manages to recognize that their own spade is also a spade, not the sceptre of celestial Wisdom.

Quote from: Nichole W. on January 19, 2008, 02:49:20 PM
No, Sarah, they are unsafe and inhuman when used in the way they were used on you -- to force you into behavioral patterns that were more acceptable to those who raised you.

But, that, imo, isn't psychology at all, but a behavioral boot-camp that employed methods that were heartless and cruel. As you can see, I have no argument with that at all.

And my point about science is exactly what you have stated: that usage makes a lot of the argument. Science cannot be separated in some idealistic fashion from the purposes for which it is used. The economic power of Dow Chemical or DuPont or Microsoft is damned important and cannot be separated as though it was somehow some nasty bit of sludge that affixed itself to the toes of the pure and sublime scientists who work for it.

Context does have a great deal of importance. And that I find does indeed apply to misogyny and social class and a host of other difficulties involved where someone wants to say: but that wasn't ME. No, but it could well be.



Nichole

See, You are attemting to distract from my points by suggesting that my personal experience is the only reason why I have an issue with Psychology.

That is an assumption.

It doesn't work.

Here. I could do the same to you if I said:
"The reason you are so defensive about it is because you are a professional Psychologist."

Except that isn't the whole of it is it?

That would be me minimizing the reasons why you chose to do it in the first place.

If all my my reasons were eotionally based, I wouldn't have much of a  logical arguement now would I?

you are in violation of a rule here Nichole. "you may challenge the issue, but never the person."

Please stick to the facts and the points presented.

Sara

Quote from: Sarah on January 19, 2008, 03:10:43 PM


Here. I could do the same to you if I said:
"The reason you are so defensive about it is because you are a professional Psychologist."

Not only would it not be the whole, it wouldn't be the any of it, Sarah. I am not a professional psychologist and never will be. I am not studying psychology while I am in school.

Quoteyou are in violation of a rule here Nichole. "you may challenge the issue, but never the person."

I saw no personal attack at all, Sarah. And I have seen those here so am fairly well aware of what they look like. I believe that my argument is with the argument. I do think that how we make our arguments and where we make them are often established by the contexts of our lives.

Biases are biases as I am sure our scientists would agree.

Even if psychology doesn't work as a science.
It can still be useful.

While social sciences cannot make predicions, they can offer probability
that something will occur. That's what's stats and programs like SPSS
are at the core of the field.

Its the great push
to justify social sciences as a science
which makes many people distrust them.
If someone is social sciences knows that they may be wrong,
but they are probably right and act
as such without arrrogance,
there will less misunderstanding when the analysis fails.

Also, since interpretation  takes on such a big part of social science,
who delivers the message, how it is delivered and
to whom counts just as much as the message itself.
A kind of meta-level which doesn't exist in hard science where
the physical world creates strict bondaries of interpretation.

Quote from: Nichole W. on January 19, 2008, 03:26:51 PM

Quote from: Sarah on January 19, 2008, 03:10:43 PM


Here. I could do the same to you if I said:
"The reason you are so defensive about it is because you are a professional Psychologist."

Not only would it not be the whole, it wouldn't be the any of it, Sarah. I am not a professional psychologist and never will be. I am not studying psychology while I am in school.

Quoteyou are in violation of a rule here Nichole. "you may challenge the issue, but never the person."

I saw no personal attack at all, Sarah. And I have seen those here so am fairly well aware of what they look like. I believe that my argument is with the argument. I do think that how we make our arguments and where we make them are often established by the contexts of our lives.

Biases are biases as I am sure our scientists would agree.

Bias doesn't invallidate logic.

That was a "bait and switch" technique.

Correct me if I am wrong, But you did say that you are a Therapist no?

as in a Psychological therapist? Not like a Watsu practitioner?

EDIT: Of course I have a bias. Everybody does in a debate. That's why it is a debate. I am arguing a perspective. That's what one does in a debate.

However Others and myself have presented points.

If one wishes to engage in an open  forum debate, one must use logic.

You are free to address the points and present counter arguements for consideration.

Sara

I could not agree more, Keira. Which is why I am convinced that 'social scientists' who do not get a thorough immersion in the humanities are not doing the field any favors at all. To run after 'scientific' in the sense that 'science' is somehow beyond question is to fall into the same pit that most 'scientists' have fallen into which is to think that one somehow has sampled 'objective truth.'

I have my suspicions that any 'Truth' is objective; of course my suspicion stems in part from a Buddhist sense that we are all interconnected and from a theoretical physics pov that 'observers' take part in actions.   

And I do disagree about that Meta-level, Keira. I think many scientific' experiments have and are skewed by particular viewpoints that the scientist has. Some more egregious and likely than are others. But 'proving' essentials through biology, for an example, has led to past and perhaps current skewed experiments that simply prove what was meant to be proved: a prejudice of the prover.

I do imagine that is much more difficult with astro-physics than with biology or chemistry. But I also think that the meta-level of who is financing the prover can well be a factor that matters in a hard science as well.

I had thought about 'applied' and 'theoretical' as different areas, and to some extent they are. But, still kost researchers don't have the wherewithal to do research without being paid to do it. I agree that IRBs and such things often help us avoid the most egregious incidences, but they do not often look at 'conflict of interest' in regard to who is footing the bill.

I suspect a university researcher who is working on a grant from Sanofi-Aventis, Novatis, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer is not going to 'discover' something that they do not want discovered.

An added note:

The whole reason for the use of the Scientific method and the use of logic in a debate is to put a check on bias.

that way only the facts and actual information are addressed and not the bias of the person doing the work.

A Scientist who does not adhere to the Scientific Method is not a Scientist.

EDIT:
At any point the Original Topic was dealing with this abusive 'treatment' center in Toronto.

I have said that due to persistant abuses like this one and due to lack of predictability and reliability on the part of  Psychology; that it is a Philosophy, that does not deserve favoritism in government compared to any other philosophy, and is not a sound public investment on the part of taxpayers.