From: utzoo!laura
Newsgroups: net.misc
Title: REAL Sciences Don"t Eat Quiche (reply) 
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2184
Posted: Wed Jun 16 17:37:31 1982
Received: Wed Jun 16 17:37:31 1982


	Begging to disagree with you but I dont think that it is fair to
assume that I have no interest in human beings because I have no faith in
today's psychology.  Indeed, it is precisely because I care about human
beings which makes today's assessment of psychology so frightening.  I
am very worried when people abdicate their responsibility for their own
lives and instead rely on their neighbourhood 'shrink'.  Not only are they
missing out on a wonderful if difficult experience, but they are also
likely to get *inaccurate*, *misleading*, and possibly *dangerous*
advice.  If, when, psychology becomes a quantitative science it will do
untold good for mankind if used properly (though it is sobering to think
how our ideas must change to accept the ability to in some way determine
the activities of others with more than just a hope of success), now, as
it stands, it can not fail to do harm.
	The comparison with the unified field theory is not apt -- it
is better to compare today's psychology with the alchemy which lead to
chemistry.  It may have been the most scientific thing going at the time,
and useful results have come from the results of the ancient alchemists,
but some of the potions recommended on the search for the philosopher's
stone make today's chemists shudder at the dangerous and useless 
substances actually produced.
	If I came up with a unified field theory which ignored or
denied known physical laws such as conservation of mass&energy, or which  
proved that the law of gravity was a figment of our imagination, you
would have little trouble proving me wrong.  The foundation of physics
is the repeatable experiment.  Matter and energy are not suggestible,
they obey certain laws, and behave in accordance with those laws.
	Psychology today is very different.  Very different theories such
as SOCIOBIOLOGY and SKINNERIAN BEHAVIORISM have enough statistical
evidence to 'prove' them.  Freud and Jung have various theories, and their
followers elaborate on them and form semi-freudian and pseudo-jungan
theories.  Alas, no synthesis is possible because to much of the various
beliefs are mutually exclusive.  This does not stop people from relying
on their 'shrink' who 'must know everything because he is a doctor'.  This
does not mean that psychology is not a poor field for research, the
converse is true.  But is does mean that the man who implicitly trusts
his 'shrink' runs the same risk as the man who believes my new field of
physics which omits the law of gravity -- if he tries to fly out of his
apartment building he is in for a rude shock at the very least.
	Given a large enough sample of people it is possible to draw
a (probably) infinite number of contradictory conclusions.  Nearly every
theory of psychology has had some merrit -- but how much it is currently
impossible to judge.  Thus while it sounds very attractive to say that
'computers are ruining society because they limit our contact with real
human beings' all in all it boils down to a statement of faith.  Either
you believe it or you dont -- and you will find evidence to support your
position if you look hard enough.  My question is whether such a field
should have been unleashed on an unsuspecting and uncritical public,
especially as a 'science', since the average soul has demonstrated that he
may not differentiate  between Physics and Creation Science. The question
now is academic -- the 'shrink' is well-rooted in contempory society --
But now that they have, do we who know better have an obligation to bring
this view of psychology to the public eye?  If so, 'computer addiction'
may be a good place to start.	Currently I do nothing, out of respect for
my fellow man's ability to do what he pleases as long as it does not harm   
others.  But if a large group get together and try to save me from my
computer I think that it will be time for me to save them from their
unquestioning belief.                                 

					Laura Creighton
					decvax!utzoo!laura