01/20/03: The Face Thing

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by juju
In my experience, psychologists barely ever use empirically verifiable propositions, and they're hardly ever falsifiable.

Not necessarily true, particularly in the fields of biological and physiological psychology. (You try and do a 12-page research paper on endorphins, trying to reading through 30 or 40 studies...my God, talk about slumberland.)

How can you disprove a theory that explains what someone is thinking? How can other people verify that your theory is true?

Psychology goes beyond just what one is thinking.

But to answer your question, we may be able to explain what someone is thinking using brain function, particularly if we know what part of the brain might cause a particular thinking. It can be measured by a change in brain activity (wave patterns, chemistry changes, etc.).

A good psychological study involves as many participants as are feasible, is as objective as possible, tests a theory in which responses are quantifiable, and tries to show statistical significance. The mere fact that you're dealing with people in many cases is an automatic strike. However...

Let's throw out a rough example here. I want to observe a behavior that has an apparent cause. So, I randomly selected 200 individuals and try to test my theory. To measure the response, I may use something like an increase in BP, heart rate, skin sensors, etc. I also use a control group that will not be exposed to the apparent cause, and their responses will be measured as well. I then use an Analysis of Variance to see what the statistical significance is, and I get a .05. This basically means that there is only a 5% chance of this behavior just randomly occurring (i.e. without the cause). (5% is one standard, an even tougher standard is 1%.)

Granted, there are obvious things that can't be studied or that can't be studied right now. The trick is trying to find the way to study them.

They don't. They just say, "Ok, that must be true, because you have a degree."

That's simply not true, at least to those with knowledge in the subject. I love Maslow's theory of self-actualization, but it has lots of critics. You also have the Freudians, whom I think are one ship short of shipwreck, but are worshipped by others.

Psychology (for good or bad) is able to accomodate divergent views that merit debate, but the winner is the one that can test the theory scientifically. Until then, the debates continue.

The physical sciences can be the same way at times...this could cause cancer...this could cause cancer...no, our theory shows that this could cause cancer, but not that...okay this might not lead to cancer as we originally tested, etc.

Also, take into consideration that a good chunk of psychology involves observation...it has its good and bad points.

In my opinion, pychology involves a hell of a lot of making shit up. How else can you explain the fact that homosexuality was defined as a disorder in the DSM up until 1973? No one did any tests on this theory; they just decided that it must be true because it made sense at the time.

You may find this an interesting read.

Bottom line: study was done, people saw the light, psychoanalysts are stupid. :)

Although, some folks still consider homosexuality a disorder...have you ever heard of "reparative therapy?"