DSM-V and Disorders
It appears like that I was wrong and this was an authentic source. However, that doesn’t mean Pro’s interpretation and understanding is definitely correct. Rather, Pro’s interpretation about at least 1 topic about said disorder is wrong even if the source, the “definition”, the description copied from the authentic website is correct, and matches more than the source I have posted in the last round, instead of what Pro thinks about the disorder.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder is one of the most common disorders[1
], which means that even if BDD is said to match an abundance of people in Pro’s high school, it would still be somewhat plausible.
Just because a disorder is common doesn’t mean it isn’t one. The description itself states that in order to reach the level of disorder, one must constantly be preoccupied with the idea that one’s body is not fit, even if one’s body is actually fit. A lean person knowing how weak he is and just wanting to get strong is not suffering from BDD. A person who constantly thinks about how weak he is, especially when he isn’t even weak, that is BDD. Surely, most people with BDD would think they are ugly, but a person who looks at a mirror and thinks he is ugly, but is still able to socialize with companions normally like any normal healthy human being and joke about his ugliness, instead of letting the idea of him being unfit and ugly talking over his mind(especially when he isn’t even unfit of ugly at all!), making him insane, that person is not suffering from BDD. This is the same thing as just wanting to clean up one’s home not making that person suffering from OCD, or just playing video games at works not making that person suffering from ADHD. It is entirely plausible that most, if not all, people with BDD thinks they are ugly(even when they are not) however, just because one thinks oneself is ugly, does not necessarily hint BDD absolutely. Normal people with a sense of humor and beauty will probably “glow internally” if they become much more handsome and beautiful; but people with BDD? They would still think they are ugly and have no confidence in themselves even if they look like supermodels. Yeah, that is the difference.
Pro accuses me of accusing Pro for misunderstanding the DSM-V. However, she just did. Pro ruled a disorder as absurd because it is common and doesn’t sound serious, even though it is serious and it can turn people delusional and self-obsessed, and have no confidence in themselves because they are thinking in an uncommon manner, harmful to themselves. Common cold is common, do you expect yourselves to not provide any medications because you think it is not a big deal; and do you expect society to expect you to do so?
The Delusional Disorder part is the same issue. This time, I do not see any authentic evidence from Pro, genuinely. Pro did not mention that it is from the DSM-V or anything at all. I, however, have an authentic sources that specifies the scope of the disorder, which includes, you know, obsession. People with Delusion Disorder actually have illusions that causes impairment in their lives[Linked last round]. In other words, even though most people with the specified condition(erotomantic type) would falsely think someone is in love with them, that is not enough to declare someone with delusional disorder. What is more vital for identifying people with delusion disorder vs not is if they actually see illusions, such as ones that would display their loved ones right before their eyes, even if they do not exist to other people. Illusions are what is important, not who they love.
Here is another source that supports my case[2
], here is another[3
In the end, it was Pro who misinterpreted the descriptions from an authentic source, and then fabricated inaccurate definitions, blaming it on the field of research.
The mind and the soul
Pro opens up by stating that near-death experiences are not authentic evidence, even though neurosurgeons have recorded them themselves, and blind people can see in this state. The only logical conclusion would mean that the mind can, in fact, exist beyond the hardware called the body, otherwise there would, logically and scientifically, be no explanations. This is on top of that Pro does not have any authentic sources to prove that near-death experiences are not authentic evidence: A logical fallacy. If you are proving me wrong, at least give some evidence instead of resorting to absurdity.
Then, Pro listed another statement not as wrong, but as absurd. What is exactly absurd about being able to sense things? We reason, we see things, we touch things, and we have emotions. All normal people can do so and all people can sense other people doing the things. It is a truism if you have lived your life, and at this point I am 50% sure that Puachu is a bot, not understanding how people even feel.
Think about the statements. Take a walk away from your computer. You will understand that it is true. Then, at the very least, Pro doesn’t even state why the mind isn’t real, let alone provide any source for it.
In the end, the mind subjectively exists to anything that can think. This is on top of that[4
] Behavior projects consciousness and the mind, which makes studying psychology still something based on the real world.
Scientific Method & Testable Theories
First off, Pro dismisses the theory of gravity as not a theory at all, because it apparently is a law also. Well, if the evidence isn’t convincing enough, here is more[5
]. Newton just theorizing that there is a gravitational force is of zero equations and is just a theory.
Then, Pro states that Psychology has no scientific theories. That is generally untrue.
]There are many fields of psychology, each one conducting their researches and creating their theories, using the scientific method. Of these, there is a field called “Quantitative psychology” which is mainly about how to measure qualities in human consciousness. [8
] It is also untrue that Psychology has no theories, and this point is unsupported by Pro with any evidence at all. The whole reason this point exists is because Pro states that the mind does not exist. And? There is no evidence of the mind not existing. There is also no evidence of the mind not connecting with behaviors(in fact, I have given counterevidence). All that is left for Pro is an actual failure of the field not representative of the entire field, plus two or so misinterpretations of existing disorders.
As for disorders, people aren’t voted to be mentally ill or not[9
], a misconception. What the “votes” actually contribute to are another classification, another state of mind. They decide whether that state of mind is ill, not whether it exists[10
]. People are like that even if the psychological researchers don’t give an eye at it and classify it as nothing. The psychologists are discovering the states of mind, not creating them and shoving them up broken people.
Psychology concerns behavior and feelings of people, that should be a truism. And, it does exactly what it is meant to do: making connections between behavior and the mind. The theories do that too[8
]. The behaviorist theory and many more can be experimented on, some given in R1.
There are much more to “data” than votes, thanks to Quantitative psychology. Surveys about mental states could also serve as data: You hand those out to a group of people, and then make conclusions about people who answers “yes” on which question, etc. Psychology does that and since it is just a science dealing with people’s thinking, this would count as evidence.
If Pro is saying that Psychology is unable to explain the results, neither can any field do so except the ones dealing with the most fundamental knowledge. Biology is able to explain why a plant cell is rigid and not invincible, but it is unable to explain why the atoms making it up is composed of electrons, protons and neutrons, etc. You got to leave that to the particle physicists. Computer Scientists can program DART and all kinds of things, but cannot explain why binary or base-10 exists or works, you got to leave that to the mathematicians. Physicists are able to explain how the universe works, but cannot explain why it is designed this way. Do we also call biology, computer science, and physics pseudoscience?
The same way is Psychology. We can explain what people did to become insane and mentally impaired, even though using it we cannot explain what brain cells partook in the process. You got to leave that to the neuroscientists. Even then, Psychology is connected to the rest of the scientific body through the likes of neuroscience, whereas religion and astrology are not.
Psychology is able to explain why people think like one way and process another way through social interactions and behaviors, and experiments can be done on them with data outputting; and neuroscience got its back, connecting it to the rest of science. It has all the qualities making it science, and Pro has little backing on why it can’t explain anything, especially since there are articles for the contrary. In the end, Psychology would be more of a science and less of a pseudoscience.
In the present, authentic evidence and even encyclopedias define the term like this, and you are not more authentic than a group of language masters to be trusted to make definitions. If you are, prove to me.
As of now, the definitions are defining the term like this whether you like it or not, so we are technically just discussing a misinterpretation of the word. Remember the definitions still haven’t been changed yet, so if the term means something else to you, maybe it is not the right word for you. Psychology is defined as a science and it is a science. If it is not a science, it is not psychology. If it is Psychology, it is not a pseudoscience. Definitions are all the word means, and I see no definitions stating that psychology is a pseudoscience. So, all in all, psychology is a science.
● Pro misinterpreted some disorders, and those disorders are still real.
● The behavior is a projection of the mind, and psychology is still about existing things
● Psychology uses the scientific methods and has theories and there is Quantitative psychology measuring human behavior and mind, making data exist.
● Psychology is able to explain things that it is meant to explain, and you cannot explain why a cupcake adds salt with nuclear science. Psychology is connected with the rest of science unlike pseudoscience. Psychology can explain the connections between behaviors and states of human mind.
● The definitions are all that a word means and Psychology is defined as a science, thus it is a science.
● In the end, psychology is a science and not a pseudoscience.
● The topic statement is not sufficiently proven. Please vote Con.
Thank you for reading this essay that I have written in a few hours. Please vote Con if you find my arguments convincing. Please vote fairly. That is all.