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