Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ccicpg!keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: psychology is dead, long live psychology Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 04:43:05 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 137 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu A reply to Karl heady Henning's posting and others out there. It is pretty obvious from the replies that I have received that my original posting on psychology has hit a nerve out there. This is what I get for making the kinds of statments that I made... As background for those who missed the first posting, I made some rather bold statements. The first was that since clinical psychology has proven itself ineffective in curing the average patient, then claims of psychologists to have workable explanations for mentally ill patients exhibiting characteristics that some would interpret as demon possession should be taken with a grain of salt. In other words, psychologists have no more claim to the truth than someone posing a "Christian" explanation. The second bold statement was that many people who do not believe in the Christian God base their rejection of Christian explanations on ill founded scientific alternatives. At least that is what I was trying to say. Anyway allow me to bring up Karl heady Henning's major points and attempt to clarify what I was saying. My apologies to everyone I confused. 1) "Beliefs in God and Satan are leftovers from the middle ages." Mr. Henning doesn't make it clear whether or not he agrees with this statment. However, the truth of the matter is this: A large number of people in the U.S. believe this statement. The point I am making is this type of statement is simply not constructive. It is unproveable and puts Christians on the defensive whenever it is stated. Those who agree with this statement automatically classify Christians as being medieval in their thinking and behavior. Christians on the other hand tend to label people who agree with this statement as "heathens" or "pagans." These are not terms of endearment either. What I am trying to communicate is that the statement is unprovable and any attempts to prove it are based on inconclusive or false evidence. 2) "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." My counter assertion on this was: "Psychology as a science has been trying to validate itself for some time." The truth is that for the majority of us, we are always trying to validate ourselves and our beliefs. This applies to the scientist who is an atheist as well as to the Christian who is no scientist. Historically speaking, science is the newcomer on the scene and I will view it in that light. Let's compare science and the Christian Bible for a moment. The Bible has been around in written form (Old and New Testaments) for about 1800 years. It has not changed in its most profound concepts during that time. It lays out an explanation for who we are and what we should do that is the basis for the legal system in the U.S. (and other countries). Science has been around for about 500 years (plus or minus), changes its most profound theories about every 50 years or more often, and offers little insight that would lead to the kind of government and legal system we have today. Why should I trust a science that leads to one conclusion today and then to another one tomorrow? For the things science has proven itself capable of, I will trust it. In other words, I trust the science (and technology) behind my digital watch, my television set, the computers I program every day, etc. I almost trust the surgeon whose knife I am about to go under in the operating room - and I do mean almost. For the terminally ill cancer patient who is beyond treatment what is there to trust? All the mothers about 30 years ago who took thalidomide and then had children born without arms, where is the trust? All the people who had X-ray treatment for goiters and then developed cancer years later, where is the trust? Let's be honest about all this. There is every reason for science and technological practicioners of science's discoveries and conclusions to be on the defensive. If I take a new medication prescribed to me by my doctor, I take it knowing that what I am doing is a calculated risk. There is a certain percentage chance that whatever I take will kill me in the long run or harm any children I may have. Failures of science do not "prove" there is a God. Similarily a degree of caution in accepting everything science says is well justified. 3) "Knowing the details of the experiment performed that demonstarted the inefficacy of clinical psychology." The source I quoted was "Science News" weekly magazine in 1983. As I stated before, the psychologists redesigned the study to their liking. Since it has been awhile since I read that article, I can give no more details than this. Since I used the weapon of science against psychologists, the reactions I have received are predictable. "Results inconclusive, what are your sources, what were the means of the tests, etc." These reactions obscure the basic premise I was trying to state. I (or anyone else) can sit back and pick holes in any branch of science to our heart's content. Science and scientists are extremely fallible and prone to disastrous errors. Even if the article I quoted was totally inaccurate and my recollection of it was inaccurate, nothing would be changed here. What I was attempting to caution people about was everyone's tendency to know the inadequacies of something and yet use that very thing to support their opinion. To have an opinion is fine. But when it comes to defending opinions, all I am asking is that people drop this "science knows all" attitude that is so indefensible. 4) "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." Unfortunately, science is a repository for blind faith. Or rather a great many people put blind faith in science, the whole point of what I have been saying. As far as the rest of the statement goes - let's be honest again. Most scientists are doing science for some reason other than just expanding some knowledge data base. They are doing it to earn a living. They are doing it for the approval of their peers. They are doing it because it is fun. They are doing it for any number of "dark reasons" such as getting even, showing someone else up, elevating themselves to a position of status, trying to please the "acknowledged expert in the field" that they work under, etc. No one will convince me that "scientific evidence" hasn't been cooked to support someone's hidden agenda. Do I need to go into a long list here of the problems in this area? Cold fusion discoveries and the follow on supportive and collaborative experiments all over the world show just how easy it is for a scientist to fall prey to human failings. Cold fusion was eventually shown to be a hoax. Is anyone willing to fly in the face of history and state that the scientific community as a whole doesn't do this in other areas as well? 5) "It is not pitiful to need to learn. It is pitiful to refuse to learn." This is another direct quote from the posting. Allow me to explain myself. I am a software engineer and have a B.S. degree in Computer Science. I got my degree in 1975 and have been working in the computer industry for almost 16 years. During that time I have been working for computer manufacturers almost exclusively. My areas of expertise are telecommunications, local area networks, operating systems, real time software systems and device interface drivers. In any given year I must read on the average of 20 to 30 technical manuals on subjects or systems I have never seen before. Every 5 years or so I must pick up a discipline that is entirely new to me and train/educate myself on that subject. In addition, in a typical year I will read about 15 or more books on non-technical subjects. I am an avid consuemer of science digest information on fields I am not an expert in. I agree that it is not pitiful to need to learn, I make my living that way. I thank God he gave me a mind that can absorb that much material year in and year out. I am certainly not guilty of refusing to learn. The next time you make a statement of that nature Mr. Henning, make sure you know who you are talking to. I have lost count of the number of times I have stuck my foot in my mouth saying similar things. Grow out of your stereotypes about Christians. There are a lot of interesting people who are Christians. Even (gasp!) scientists who are world renowned experts in their field. From a long winded (and now tired) Christian, -Keith McIntyre