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.
Any source is a reference to outside content. The debaters citing them, is how they should enter consideration for voters. The voting policy stuff against outside content, is in reference to stuff not cited within the debate rounds.
Thanks! I appreciate you taking time to read everything and share an in-depth RFV.
Also I'm ashamed Intelligence - that paper about the NDE had... 21 subjects - with evidence like - the person claimed to have an out of body experience and saw a crumpled car.... oh no shit sherlock - a crumpled car! She must be able to see! (Sarcasm friend)
"Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser fabricated and falsified data and made false statements about experimental methods in six federally funded studies, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Hauser, who resigned from his Harvard faculty position in 2011 after an internal investigation found him responsible for research misconduct, wrote in a statement that although he has "fundamental differences" with some of the new report's findings, "I acknowledge that I made mistakes." He did not admit deliberate misconduct, however, and implied that his mistake was that he "tried to do too much" and "let important details get away from my control"
Dude, the dude behind the theory was literally fired cuz' he wrote a fraud of a paper, by the university... ya know, of psychology - so yes - they do that - they have literal journals of peer-reviewed papers - do you actually research?
Because they taste yummy. Next question.
Why do you eat babies? Some questions have no answers.
why is the voting time 179 days?
I don’t know if you get it, but these are jokes, not serious.
“I am 50% sure that Puachu is a bot” 😄
“Take a walk away from your computer.”
Hahahah that makes sense. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment.
It seems like interactions like these too often end in apparent disagreement despite the fact that the people actually agree with one another, they simply don't understand the specific meaning they have for what they're saying. I'm glad we didn't end up like that, and thanks for answering all my comments on this!
Well, we don't actually disagree on anything haha. I am also convinced that PTSD is a real thing. I am only arguing that psychologists are abusing the label of "science" in order to give themselves a level of credibility they do not deserve.
I suppose I walked right into the "fundamental" counter-argument, I meant fundamental as in "The simple things that we can utilize in our everyday lives without too much work", not in the literal scientific sense.
Regarding my usage of the word "theory", I did not mean to associate PTSD with what scientists would describe as theory. I meant to say that it seems so self explanatory that unless you've got significant evidence against it, it would seem it does indeed exist. And if it does exist, then I'd assume that psychology would exist to you as well.
I'm not very familiar with scientific terminology which is why I'm falling into all these semantic traps regarding scientific wording, I'm talking like an ordinary person rather than a quantum physicist.
“QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.”
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the most fundamental theory of physics.
I sympthasize with your prioritizing of the truth over winning an online argument. Let's upgrade our standards for a scientific theory from “I think it's pretty obvious” and “Some things are self explanatory”, to the definition provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory:
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.”
“A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.”
Do you see why PTSD is not a scientific theory? The observation that some soldiers returning from warzones suffer stress is a fact, not an explanation. Certainly their stress is not a theory either, even if you give it a long and fancy name like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
For the record, I am also surprised that the Law of Gravity is not a scientific theory.
Firstly, the statistical fuzziness in physics you've provided doesn't really prove your point, since I think we both agree even psychology's most fundamental theories are a little fuzzy, whereas the fundamentals of physics aren't so. You basically have to get into quantum physics and other extremely complicated fields to encounter fuzziness.
I don't know if PTSD is recognized as a theory, but I think it's pretty obvious that it exists given how people act after coming back from wars and such.
It's true I haven't done a preliminary Google search to confirm this, just as I haven't done a Google search to get into the semantics of every single word you've typed to make sure I understand what you're saying. Some things are self explanatory and don't require extensive research to back them up, I thought PTSD would fit that description seeing as it's so well known and thoroughly recognized.
Regarding my expectations on what you do, I'm treating this discussion as a discussion, that being an attempt to get to work together to get to the truth no matter what our current positions might be, so to some extent I would expect you to research something like PTSD if you really want to contest something so fundamental like that. I prefer discussions to debates regardless of the format, since I want to find the truth, not learn how to convince people of a lie effectively.
Statistical fuzziness in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Regarding your alleged psychological theory, please let me know if this is an accurate description of your thought process:
You have no idea if PTSD is actually a theory, and haven't even done the most preliminary Google search to confirm this, but expect me to perform the search myself in order to support your own argument and refute my own?
To Sum1: That's interesting! I didn't know that.
Can you give me an example of this statistical fuzziness in physics? I was not aware it was there to a similar degree.
And I think there are psychological theories, they're simply a lot less well known and have a lot more complicated names and features.
For instance PTSD is a pretty well known psychological thing, it has a name and I'd consider it a theory backed up with a lot of evidence.
I understand that you believe there is a theory. But let's be honest with ourselves. There is no evidence that this theory exists. The word "theory" has occurred 9 times so far in this comment chain, and still, nobody has identified a single psychological theory by name. Not one!
The statistical fuzziness you speak of is an aspect of the Standard Model in physics, too. Psychology is not special in this regard. What makes psychology special, is its complete lack of a theory, and therefore complete lack of legitimacy as a scientific field.
Lookup, "stress dwarfism." It's well documented that being emotionally abused or deprived as a child will consistently make you shorter. The amount of calcium deposited into your bones growing up is directly influenced, and in some cases, determined, by how loved you felt growing up.
That makes sense, I understand your position better now. I do believe there is a theory, but it's not really as well recognized as something like physics...and I think that's largely because it's much more difficult to test and verify theories with psychology. It takes a lot of testing with a lot of people compared to something like physics which, as far as I'm aware, is pretty exact in how you can do experiments to find out what works and what doesn't. There's also a mixture of genes and other variables which change things in regards to psychology, it would be a bit like dealing with a lot of little universes with their own physics systems that sometimes align based on the environment and sometimes align based on the plans built to form them, sometimes seemingly a mix of the two.
I do think there are a few general truths regarding psychology, like it seems obvious trauma changes how we think about the world and would likely lead to things like crime and faulty relationships based on the distrust we could likely project into the world, based on patterns we see in studies like the ones I posted and again stuff I've seen in my own life. I do agree there's no official manual to the mind that clearly defines everything beyond the shadow of a doubt though, it's a tricky business.
Fair enough. I'm just worried about other people who have already looked.
If you're concerned about me unfairly influencing your own vote, you are welcome to refrain from voting or refrain from reading the comments until after you vote.
Stop giving arguments in the comments.
I appreciate you going out of your way to cite multiple studies for me, but that is missing the point. There's no theory to explain any correlation between environment X and crime Y. If there had been, you would have just named the theory, since that's easier than scouring the internet for the papers you did find.
Because there is no theory, there cannot be a field of science called psychology. There are just a lot of studies and conjectures (contradicting each other) which are labeled "psychology", and falsely represented as an actual field of science. It is immaterial how rigorously these studies were performed, because data-gathering and observation-making do not constitute a scientific theory in and of themselves.
I don't know if I'll be able to prove you wrong there, but it seems like common sense to me..I've studied by own behavior and the behavior of those around me in response to different environments and it seems to have an extremely significant correlation, but I understand anecdotal evidence is hardly compelling.
After doing a quick search, I find a few pages on the matter, but I haven't had the time to verify them so do let me know if there's a problem there and I need to look into it more. I'd definitely be willing to do more research on this if need be.
I also despise semantic arguments, but I am using Wikipedia's crystal-clear definition of psychology, and I intend to win the debate on that point alone. Like I noted at the bottom of my first round, I was inspired by someone else, and in fact I did not have this opinion a week ago. But I now agree with it wholeheartedly.
If psychology is what you say it is, and this study is a legitimate science, you should be able to identify a theory based on these factors. For example, physics has the standard model, medicine has germ theory, chemistry has kinetic gas theory, etc.
Psychology has ... ?
It's important to emphasize that before these fields existed, we still knew that apples fell from trees, people got sick from contact with the dead, and the steam from a kettle cooled off over time. The fields came into existence with the development of theories which provided falsifiable explanations.
The observation of criminals robbing banks, on the other hand, is not explained by any psychological theory (prove me wrong).
For the record, my psychokinesiology argument was supposed to be based on the same logic as Paul Lutus' gourd argument, but I messed it up, because it has an explanation and so would actually be a legit science were additional predictions to hold true. For instance, I would fail a dare to reverse the course of the sun.
Forgive me for my lack of patience to be entirely semantically correct, psychology as a field of science doesn't cause criminals to rob banks. Psychology is the study of environmental factors that lead to mental developments that lead to bank robberies.
Psychology causes human actions? Are you using the word "psychology" to mean different things at different times in the same paragraph, or does the field of psychology cause criminals to rob banks?
This is not pointless quibbling, because my other interlocutors are similarly unable to maintain a coherent definition of "psychology".
Admittedly close to the same logic, but not quite. The difference is that there's a clear reason why the sun rises everyday, and there's no reasonable reason to believe that it should rise because of telekinesis rather than what the established truth is. With psychology, the predictions of how a person will act based on their environment isn't usually predicted by other fields and it seems to make perfect sense that it would indeed by psychology that causes their actions based on common sense...if this thing called a human has a brain and their environment changes their actions and people who study how environments change human actions call that study psychology...it's reasonable to say that psychology can predict changes based on different environments causing different outcomes whereas other fields can't do the same. Of course you could argue places like Summerhill only worked because of genetics, and that's definitely a possibility. That's why I say I don't have enough hard evidence to prove beyond a doubt that it's psychology to someone else, but I've seen enough people change based on their environment in predictable ways to definitively assure myself that it does indeed exist.
You are just confirming my opening statement in the debate.
I predict that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. I base this prediction on my own powers of psychokinesis, which I will use to lift it above the horizon. In a few hours my prediction will be put to the test. If it comes true, do I get to declare psychokinesiology a new field of science? Because this is the same logic you're using to defend psychology.
You imply that psychiatrists practice psychology, not the pseudoscience of psychiatry. That's like an astrophysicist calling themselves an astrologer. Do you acknowledge how ridiculous that sounds? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke, but you continue to confuse the mind with the brain after being corrected.
Psychiatry and psychology are very much different subjects, I agree psychiatry is a pseudoscience. However...psychology ultimately is neurology. It's simply the outcome rather than the specific details. The forest rather than the individual trees. Take a neural network in a chess AI for example, neurology would be the science associated with looking at how the neural network as a whole was structured, whereas psychology would be looking at the outcome and what inputs lead to what outputs. Saying that psychology isn't real but neurology is...well, that's like saying that a chess AI doesn't have any readable output, which is clearly false because they can play against some of the best chess players in the world. It's also like saying the forest exists but the group of trees don't, again that simply doesn't make sense. Now, to get into the hard evidence rather than allegories for the specifics on whether or not humans have an output determined by input via the environment rather than genetics, I admittedly don't have a lot. I have enough that I'm convinced based on my own research alone that human psychology is real. I've had discussions with a passionate genetic determinist to test a lot of my ideas and I've come away with a better understanding of the subject as a whole, though thus far we remain disagreeing with one another.
Behavior can definitely be measured to some degree with neurology:
And environment does seem to play a role, though maybe not a complete one:
Again I don't know enough to absolutely prove beyond a doubt that we aren't defined by genetics, but I do know that psychology exists. Too many predictions have been made and supported by future findings that had to do with psychology. I do think a lot of therapists misunderstand psychology though.
Please read what you have wrote again.
Didn't notice it? Read it again.
Read it again and again until you notice something wrong.
Believe me, it would be nothing short of criminal stupidity to allow me to practice psychiatry, so no, I'm not a psychologist. What I'm saying is brain function can be observed and understood by way of the scientific process, and therefore a science. Psychiatry is (mostly) derived from sociology which is the "study of social behavior", and is much less rooted in science. Psychology and sociology are two distinctly different subjects, and only one of them can be considered a pseudoscience, and it's not psychology.
I think you didn't click my link to the Wikipedia article on Psychology, where it is explicitly defined as science of the mind. The link is blue, near the top of the page, so it's hard to understand how you could have missed something so obvious ... unless you are a psychologist.
I think you're confusing psychology with sociology. Psychology is the study of how the brain functions and is demonstrably scientifically accurate. Sociology is a pseudoscience that is really rooted in art, not science.
"Psychologists and psychiatrists are self-deluded con-artists preying on the gullibility and scientific naïvité of the public."
You seem to be using your brain when typing this statement. Now use it a bit more and think about others who actually know how to deal with it.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.