Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl heady Henning) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: psychology is dead, long live psychology Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 09:23:21 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: SUNY Buffalo Lines: 173 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Keith McIntyre writes: >Just a few notes to those of you out there who believe that man has >reached a new level of maturity and that beliefs in God and Satan are >leftovers from the middle ages. One can conclude that "beliefs in God and Satan are leftovers from the middle ages", without asserting that "a new level of maturity" has been achieved by Man. The capitalized term "Man" may be useful in biological distinction and anthropo- logical discourse, but the universality it implies is mis- leading in a sociological context. Nietszche was wrong in claiming that "god is dead", insofar as he failed to reckon on the sociological "functional truth", that in a society where some group of people believe god exists, the question of god remains very much alive. Yet perhaps he realized this, and was simply optimistic about his fellow men. Perhaps he wouldn't have been so optimistic, had he read more Twain :-) >Psychology as a science has been trying to validate itself for some time. Psychology, like all science, has sought to understand a branch of human experience. Religions, as non-scientific assertions, have been trying to validate themselves for some time. >A study was done in the 70's by an independent group on the patients of >psychologists. I observe that you have moved blithely from psychology as a science, to clinical psychology; but let that pass. >[paragraph describing (but not detailing) two experiments, > the second modified to the "liking" of psychologists, > which resulted in "identical cure rates" between groups > of treated and untreated patients] Of course, unless one knows more about the details and scope of the experiment, it is difficult to know how to interpret these results you so selflessly provide. I take it that, either you know the experiment in more detail, or you feel that such detail is irrelevant? >The obvious conclusion? Psychologists and their treatment techniques are >irrelevant to the mental health of anyone receiving treatment. Is this the obvious conclusion, and is it a correct conclusion? If we conduct a pharmaceutical experiment where half the patients are given aspirin, and the other half are given a placebo, and "cure rates" are the same between the two groups, does this prove that the aspirin was "irrelevant" -- or let's say instead, "thoroughly ineffective"? Your "obvious conclusion" is simplistic. I for one am glad that /you/ are not a psychologist, for example. >Why then do non-believers base their beliefs on a field of "science" that >is "fuzzy" at best and bogus at the extreme? You misunderstand "science" in general. Science is not a repository for blind faith; it is the systematic attempt to expand and improve knowledge. Scientists -- in sharp contrast to a number of pious fellow-citizens -- do not claim to know everything; they /do/ dedicate themselves to learning more, and better. Unlike religion, science does not propose to relieve the individual of the responsibilities of thought. You misunderstand the significance of the "experiment" you cited Even it is bona fide, this experiment doesn't serve as the great death-knell for psychology, as you seem to think; it provides material for modification of existing applied psychological theory, and indeed, more knowledge. "bogus at the extreme" is mere opinionated abuse; but every science is speculative at the extreme -- and it is more than likely that you should be thankful for your health because of it. A precious little we would understand about the workings of the human body, if scientists hadn't dared to defy religious taboos regarding corpses. Do I misunderstand you if I suggest that you evince an extraordinary antipathy to psychology? The human mind is a dazzlingly complex physical mechanism; and it's sunctions are not susceptible to such convenient examination, as the stomach to [whatever famous doctor that was] who was able to observe the pierced stomach of a soldier recovering from an artillery wound. "I tremble to think what the state of learning would be, if everybody shared your driving curiosity." (sarcastic remark in /Inherit the Wind/) >[paragraph re: schizophrenics] >Contrary to what many want to believe, very >little of this is even vaguely understood by the medical profession. And I suppose your understanding in this regard is as clear as an unmuddied lake? The medical profession is trying to learn; in this spirit, it is no disgrace to "expose one's ignorance". >There is one area where modern science has next to no understanding of >what is going on and that is the human brain. I think you've expressed yourself poorly here; if not, you are greatly mistaken. The human brain is -- well, it would be exaggerating on the order of some of your remarks if I were to say "well understood" -- becoming increasingly understood. The relationship between the brain and behavior, however, is still incredibly thorny. >Given the success rate of modern treatments for mental disorders and >given the actual demonstrated understanding that medical practitioners >actually have, Christianity posits just as likely an explanation as >anything else. Do you mean the xianity of Paul, or of Origen, or of Augustine, or of Aquinas, or of Pope Gregory, or of someone else? I assume (although you are not explicit) that it is mental disorders of which xianity posits as likely an explanation as anything else? And just what is that explanation (he asked, not expecting any psychological breakthroughs)? >... Mankind knows so little it is pitiful. It is not pitiful to need to learn. It is pitiful to refuse to learn. >Each of us knows only a tiny fraction of the little that mankind knows. >Yet we all like to puff ourselves up and parade around acting as if we >do know something. To know a small fraction of a great deal, is not to know nothing. There's a lot of water on this planet, but I only need a few gallons to take a shower. >Paul Simon said it so well. >"All lies in jest 'til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards >the rest." I think (but confess the limitations of my knowledge) that you may have misquoted him; I believe the line goes "all lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." Also, the quotation has nothing to do with objective knowledge, but with the filters through which a man elects to receive objective knowledge; and on the whole seems to me to apply more readily (though not exclusively) to the exercise of religion, than to the pursuits of science. kph -- Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless. Life is meaningless. We're meaningless. (/Deadly pause/) I have a sudden and overpowering urge to get laid. -- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"