Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#3126

Psychology is Pseudoscience

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

Psychiatry, Psychology, and all the numerous "sciences" whose label possesses the "psych-" suffix are all pseudosciences masquerading as real science. Therapy is nothing more than a lucrative scam. Psychologists and psychiatrists are self-deluded con-artists preying on the gullibility and scientific naïvité of the public. The best proof I'm right is how I used some fancy symbols in a very pretentious word that you don't know how to type without searching Google for "how to type special symbols", and then copy-pasting them into your pathetic excuse of a counter-argument that just screams of being yet another failed abortion of your incoherent thought processes.

Resolved:

Psychology, Psychiatry, etc. are pseudoscience.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Not the best start with wasting effort criticizing a statement from the comments... Pro recovers and very effectively shows misapplication of psychology, and contrasts it against hard sciences.
Con attempts a silver bullet solution to the debate, by common definitions. He trails off into some pseudoscience of near death experiences (yes, it was to support a point about the mind, not just spiritualism). And then hits a home run with comparing flawed results/applications to Newton misjudging details about gravity, even while still advancing science. The real silver bullet he pulls is in talking of depression, and showing how studies of it employ the scientific method.

Pro opens R2 with insults, points out that definitions can be flawed (agreed... also wondering if I debated pro on if something is a science or not), and proclaims that psychology lacks the ability to test anything so cannot employ the scientific method. He then goes into line by line replies (I strongly dislike those, when the ideas can be easily clustered by heading). He ends by accusing con of having brain damage...
Lets see, con defends that disorders are real even if common among teenaged boys. He wastes some time on the near death experience thing (it could be a debate in itself, in this one it's kind of distracting). And he doubles down on psychology frequently employing the scientific method to include making theories (the sources last round to a scientific journal pretty well carry this).

Had the resolution been more balanced (such as calling it closer to a pseudoscience than a hard science), this debate would merit greater consideration. As is, con effectively showed that it does (even if not every practitioner) employ the scientific method, making it in general a science.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro begins on a flawed foot in the Description, citing "Psycho-" as a suffix. It is a prefix, I'll let that slide. Pro's argument must further slide by beginning round 1 with a reference of comment [post #2] by Con, prior to acceptance of the debate, which I consider a reference to outside content. Not a great beginning with 2 strikes in two sentences separated by a debate transfer from challenge to acceptance.

Argument: Pro has a major hill to climb in demonstrating the BoP; it is almost a contrary truism. Pro's R1 contains a statement early on, that, itself, sounds like a contrary truism, as well: "The mind cannot be observed or measured." It is a nice, declarative comment, but, sadly, it has no support that it is anything but
Pro's opinion. I am not convinced by the argument, alone, but to cite a source for this contention would violate voting rules. Let's just conclude that the statement has no academic, let alone scientific evidence.

Further, Pro's R1 speaks to RMT, and, although citing "fruits" of RMT, there is but one anecdote provided; hardly convincing while completely missing any other citation but the anecdote. I am waiting, but in vain, for Pro to define his terms: Psychology, or Pseudoscience. Without definition, Pro wanders into opinionated accusation, that Psychology practitioners are "self-deluded con-artists preying on the gullibility and scientific naïvité of the public." Again, a declarative statement with no scholarship cited to support it.
Con's R1 adequately cites several reliable definitional sources rendering Psychology as a science. Pro had no definitions, only hurled insults. Con adequately cited several sources explaining the reality and measurability of the mind, thus destroying Pro's opinions on the matter.

Pro begins r2 with an insult hurled at his opponent over his chosen moniker. This will be revisited. Pro then says, rebutting Con's cited dictionary definitions, "Appealing to dictionary definitions is pointless." Intended as a rebuttal shot across Con's bow, the cannon is, unfortunately, pointed inboard; it is pro's ship that sinks. R2 is entirely a discussion about theory and its relation to science, but Pro's source for his argument is Con statements from R1. Again, not a single reference to an academically substantiated source other than for the definition of scientific theory. The point Pro misses in this entire round is that even theory, to hold as theory, as defined, must be testable, and those test results cited. Since Pro offers no cited sources demonstrating tests that support his Resolution, the argument utterly fails. Con wins.

Sources: Pro had virtually none that actually support the Resolution, whereas Con had multiple sources in both rounds substantiating his BoP, for example, the definitions of "Psychology" in R1, and cited references to psychological scientific theories. Pro's R1 debunked [without cited evidence] that they did not exist. CVon wins.

Legibility: Both opponents were clearly legible, Tie, yet some Pro comments should have been more vague. This will be revisited

Conduct: Pro lost this point at the outset of R1, and sealed the loss at the outset of R2, as noted above in Argument section, Whereas Con remained respectful throughout.. Con wins.
I know the separation of factors in the debate are not necessarily required to this detail, but I thought the distinction of argument style between the opponents merited the detail. I suggest for future debates, Pro clean up the act. It is blatantly clear to be lacking tact.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Resolution: Psychology is Pseudoscience - Therefore, Pro must demonstrate that psychology is pseudoscience, and Con must demonstrate the opposite

Foreward:
Neither debater did particularly well establishing a framework for which us voters should view the debate - for example - Pro got close, trying to establish what he considered science was and using some of his evidence to say that Psychology didn't fit - but what he didn't do was establish what a pseudoscience was. Furthermore, Con also failed to do this, and later in the argument, both debaters merely threw claims at each other - though Pro is more guilty of this than Con.

Arguments:
Pro starts out reasonably strong, declaring what science is and what Psychology is, he attempts to cast doubt by citing a single theory not being discredited, citing RMT as an example - though he lacked evidence to support his claim that it was taken down because of scandals and not discredited by psychologists, as he claims. Instead he cites a newspaper... Further, he establishes examples of "actual" sciences, using physics and medicine - then making fun of disorders? He doesn't use any sources to cite his claims, nor even make real logical arguments, just claims that its not very common according to his experience. So far, Pro has established a semi-framework, and not convinced me at all of his BoP.

Con began with an, admittedly semantic, argument - but one that was fairly convincing. Several dictionaries do indeed list Psychology as a science, like, by definition - though as Pro later points out dictionary definitions are... well semantic while trying to prove this, but Con does have some good points in here. Despite his.... lackluster source regarding the mind - I was never particularly convinced by Pro's arguments either - neither really established very much empirically - but Con did have more evidence than Pro did. Furthermore, Con also established that the fact that there are false theories and practices in sciences does not make that science... not a science, even using Pro's examples of sciences.

Now, I could go on about the second round - but for Pro its just a bunch of claims, with almost not citations, and no citations that actually support his claims - here is Con's much stronger round. He establishes that Psychology does have testable hypotheses, and gives an example, even applying the scientific method - completely destroying Pro's arguments. Really - Pro doesn't do much to actually make a good argument, mostly making claims without any evidence of said claims, and no logic in it. He tries to refute that Gravity wasn't a theory.... but it is - scientifically speaking, as Con points out. To conclude, Con won... by a lot.