Pseudoscience....

[Mr Mystery]

Here I am, watching 'Ancient Aliens' on my telly box.

Good lord, the sheer amount of speculation presented as fact is quite staggering! Now don't get me wrong, it's very entertaining, but crikey o'lordy, you just cannot take it seriously!

For instance, its gone from asking general questions, such as 'is x a representation of an alien in a space suit' straight to 'do oceans hold hold more proof of alien visitors?'

As a Fortean type, I have a genuine 'willing sceptic' approach to these things. But man this is shonky beyond belief!

Opinion as fact, curious suppositions, such as stating there were no cities 5,000 years ago (Egypt anyone?) and so on, just to support their insistence its all aliens...

[Wolfshade]

URGH.

No one likes that crap.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

URGH.

No one likes that crap.

Is there proof ? There are 2 examples of possibilities ...and I'll list them 1. A tribe in Africa knew the location of the Dog Star something which could not be seen with the naked eye. The myth went that visitors came and told them they were from there.

The second is the bizzare "Aztec / South American pre Colombian lines / pictures we still have no clue how they were created . Some say it was aliens .

I read the Fortean Times and that ancient aliens guy is too odd for them!

Fatagn!

[Wolfshade]

The dog star, Sirius is one of the brightest stars at night with an apparent magnitude < 0. It can be observed in both northern and southern hemisphere...

[DarkLink]

Most of the field of nutrition is pseudoscience. In fact, pseudoscience isn't even quite the right word. It's more politoscience. There's literally no possible reason a rational individual who takes more than an offhanded glance at the nutrition label would ever consider grains of any sort, including whole wheat, to be even remotely health, or even worth of including in our diets, aside from how common it is. But grain makes money, and so we get commercials full of crap about how grains are healthy but meat is bad for you.

Also, 9/11 conspiracy theories are really dumb. This makes me sad for the quality of our public education sysetm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(film_series)

[scadugenga]

Pseudo-science can, however, make the basis for some awesome stories.

No, not Dan I'm-going-to-piss-off-Catholics-everywhere-and-make-a-mint Brown.

Two authors come to mind:

1) James Rollins. His Sigma Force series monkeys about with Pseudo-science and inserts it into a nice taut action-thriller novel, and

2) Jonathan Maberry. His Joe Ledger series kicks amazing arse. Patient Zero deals with a genetic-engineered "zombie" virus and is an addicting read. Plus, Maberry is a 3rd dan in Jiu Jitsu and really understands how to script a combat scene.

[DarkLink]

Well, that's kind of a staple of sci-fi. Even hard science fiction will often bend the rules, so long as the way those rules are bent is consistent and explored to their logical conclusion.

[scadugenga]

Well, that's kind of a staple of sci-fi. Even hard science fiction will often bend the rules, so long as the way those rules are bent is consistent and explored to their logical conclusion.

True--except that both series are set in current times--not sci-fi.

Well worth the read.

[Necron2.0]

Psychology ... lock, stock and barrel - it's a pseudoscience. However, I call behavioral studies distinct from the bulk of psychology because it actually studies things that are quantifiable and repeatable. For the bulk of psychology though, it's all just throwing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks.

In general, though, I find it interesting how prevailing opinions in science can shift radically with no additional input at all, based solely (it seems) on the political climate. Take the question of is there life in the universe outside of earth. Two decades ago that question would have been met with hopeful yet resounding skepticism. Today, it is practically assumed that there is life elsewhere. What evidence is there that caused this paradigm shift? Nothing. There was just as much proof twenty to thirty years ago for extra-terrestrial life as there is today. The only thing that has changed is the prejudice of the scientific community.

[eldargal]

Pseudoscience can be interesting and fodder for stories though I do find the ancient aliens/von Daniken Chariots of the Gods thing incredibly annoying because it downplays the skill an ingenuity of our species. Humans were no less intelligent than they were today, just less educated and with less knowledge of how the universe worked. An intelligent man or woman could still intuit a great and learn through trial and error and even before text oral traditions could transmit vast amounts of informations.

Some of my favourite pseudoscience articles which Ican no longer find was one claiming that archaeological evidence for centaurs had been found in caves on the Greek mainland or the Balkans and misinterpreted as fragmented horse burials and that the evolutionary trail of spiders ended at a single point and this species could be traced no farther back and they speculated it arrived on a comet or asteroid or something. Very amusing.

Psychology absolutely is not a pseudoscience (http://theconversation.com/is-psychology-a-science-10126).

[Necron2.0]

As someone who has been a recipient of their "tender administrations" (for being "uncharacteristically" smart) ... bull-crap. Psychology (outside of the study of behavior) IS most definitely a pseudo-science. The article says it, itself:


... psychology can rarely make “point predictions”.... imprecision is to be expected, because virtually all psychological phenomena hinge on unknown contextual variables.

That is text-book definition of a pseudo-science. By definition, science must be repeatable and verifiable. Anything that is not, is not science.

[eldargal]

Except it is. It is the systematic, scientific study of human behaviour, that it can't precisely predict things is irrelevant. Are you sure you aren't confusing it with psychiatry? A lot of people make that mistake. You are focusing on quote about the limitations of psychology to justify your claim, which is, frankly, bollocks.

The only issue with psychology is that it is the science of something that is incredibly complex and contradictory, namely the human mind. It's no more a pseudoscience that climatology is or the scientific study of any other vast, complex system.

Another article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/make-your-mind/201208/despite-what-you-might-have-heard-psychology-is-science)


Science:
1)The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural...
2) A particular area of this: "veterinary science".
This is exactly what psychology is. It is a science, objectively and unequivocally. To argue otherwise is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of psychology and science both.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

The dog star, Sirius is one of the brightest stars at night with an apparent magnitude < 0. It can be observed in both northern and southern hemisphere...

Well there is the FT for you.

Fatagn!

[Deadlift]

Not sure if its classed as a pseudoscience, but if you want to listen to a special kind of bollocks disguised as fact then look no further than Astrology.

[eldargal]

I'm not sure it counts because there are no claims to it being a science, it certainly is bollocks though.:)

[Deadlift]

I know it's just wiki but reading this it is indeed considered a science by its practitioners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

Through most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]

[eldargal]

Hm in that case it probably would qualify.

[Wolfshade]

Psychology is hard and very easy to miss-understand results and so claim that observations are not repeatable.

Consider a standard science experiment, you set up the conditions, you observe the results you postulate a theory, then design and setup an experiment to see if your theory predictions are observed, if they are great, if not go back re-work assumptions. But the whole thing is that you are observing/experimenting keeping everything equal and identical aside from the variable that you are examining.

With people it is very difficult to do that. As the saying goes, no two people are a like, the closest thing you can get is twin studies as they have the same nuture and nature. But otherwise people are very different they grow up being taught subtly different values and these influence everything from the way they think, the way they percieve the world and the way the react to certain stimulus.

In essence all science is "throw something at a wall and see what sticks",

[Psychosplodge]

The problem with psychology is there's two types.
There's the actual science like Wolfie just described. Then there's the crap they churn out by the thousand from universities, that's little more than pop psychology.

[Mr Mystery]

And don't forget the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

One, any old quack can practice. The other? Serious medical profession. Which oddly, still uses Electro Shock Therapy...

[Wolfshade]

ECT, electro convulsive therapy.

Though actually within Psychiatry/Psychology fields there is a big debate when ti comes to the categorisation of disorders.
The medics like a catagorical, where as the psychologists prefer a more spectrum based approach.

[eldargal]

And don't forget the difference between psychology and psychiatry.
Psychiatry being the quacks.:p Seriously I've seen first hand friends on drugs prescribe by psychiatrists for years with the problem barely under control end up basically fixed by a few months with a psychologist.

[Psychosplodge]

A proper psychologist or a mass produced uni minimum level psychologist?

[eldargal]

Practicing psychologists have rigorous standards they have to meet to be registered to practice. I was being flippant in regards to psychiatrists too, many of them rely on sound principles to work through issues and not rely on drugs. However a lot do just seem to rely on drugs.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed. Quality psychiatrists will admit it's largely trial and error, particularly when it comes to drug treatments. Sadly, some just figure 'sod it' and bung them on one type, and hope for the best.

Whilst it doesn't do the field any favours, it hardly discredits it entirely.

Other pseudoscience....Creationism. It only makes sense if you arbitrarily ignore swathes of evidence against it. For example, young earth. Earth is 6,000 years old, because that's what the Bible says. Geologists are wrong....erm...because they are, they must be. They contradict the Bible. Then you get the waffle about things, and once again, mad suppositions, like a water canopy (yeah, I know) which caused the flood and that.

Again, I find pseudoscience of interest, simply because some of the theories (well, claims, to be accurate) are interesting, just not well supported.

But conspiracy theorists? They're not even pseudoscience. They're just attention seeking malcontent mentalists. Take Loose Change, as he's already been mentioned. Claims to have 'proof' the US government was behind 9/11. That's right. The US government planned an atrocity, and have for what, nearly 12 years managed to keep a lid on it, despite that pesky kid and his 'proof'. That would be the same western government who, like all western governments, remains largely unable to organise a piss up in a brewery, or an orgy in a house of ill repute, suddenly showing an uncharacteristic machievellian streak.... Uh huh. Because you know, the alternative, that Loose Change is talking out of his hiney hiney ho is unthinkable. All that accumulated evidence that discredits him and his claims? Ignore it. All part of the conspiracy, set up to discredit him..... Yeah..... K.... If you insist. You nutter.

And it's the same for pretty much all conspiracies. They ignore fundamental evidence when it suits them, stressing just one flimsy thing which if you're in a darkened room, drink 9 pints and then squint, might just support them ish.

[Wolfshade]

Drug "treatments" treat the symptom not the cause. In terms of efficiency though most people will be thrown at CBT because it is very cost effective (you can have a nurse adminster it) and it has a high efficacy rate across a very large number of issues.

The trouble is with creationism (laugh as if there is just one) is that you can credit the evidence in such a way that it still makes sense, the historical record, or the information that geologists/cosmologists use to point to an old earth can easily be waved away as a test of faith, it is only 6k years but it was made to look older to test our resolve. Once you are against that argument, walk away and save your breath.

As for 11/9 is clearly orchestrated by the lizardmen to curtail our freedoms so we walk willingly into a totalitarian state...

[Kirsten]

well a psychiatrist declared me sane two years ago, shows what they know.

[Necron2.0]

Except it is. It is the systematic, scientific study of human behaviour, that it can't precisely predict things is irrelevant. Are you sure you aren't confusing it with psychiatry?

I did say that I consider the study of behavior as being separate and not subject to my general observation that psychology is crap. The study of behavior actually produces quantifiable data. Outside of behavioral studies, much of psychology is not repeatable (related to the thought processes of the individual) or else is woefully lacking in objectivity (related to the study of psychological trends in a population).

In the latter case, much of the "research" is conducted through polls. Now many sciences use polled data to make inferences regarding a particular theory. In general there is nothing wrong with that, IF (strong "if") the proper level of skepticism is maintained to ensure the statistical data could have no other logical and rational interpretation. In some of the studies I've read, however, psychology willfully and routinely disregards that "if" clause, which from the perspective of a statistician completely invalidates the claimed findings. I have read numerous "findings" from psychologists that go something like, "We polled 'Z' people and found that 'X' percent had condition 'A'. We also found that 'X' percent had condition 'B'. This proves that 'A' causes 'B'."

This leaves me thinking to myself, "No ... what this proves is the researcher had no clue of the difference between 'causation' and 'correlation'."

This is similar to a study I read on global warming (Asside: this is not meant as the entry point into a discussion of global warming. This is merely an example of one report that, at the very least, wasn't presented well). The condensed version of the study stated that because they found ice cores that showed high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during times when the planet was known have gotten hotter, this proved that carbon dioxide caused global warming. The problem there is ... which happenned first? The only way to suggest with that research that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas is if the carbon showed up in the ice cores before the earth warmed up. Even that doesn't prove a causal relationship. The only thing the research shows is a correlation between hot earth and atmospheric carbon. I can suggest one scenario that breaks the causal link: earth warms up, forests dry out, forests catch fire, carbon in the atmosphere. From a statistical analysis perspective, because I can find at least one exception to the data, the data cannot be used to infer any form of causal link.

Another problem with polls, particularly in their application to psychology, is the phenomenon of poll bias. Unless the poll is administered very carefully, the polled individuals will have a tendency to skew their responses toward a pollster's intended outcome.

[eldargal]

I think you're taking a narrow facet of psychology to declare the whole thing a pseudoscience. Yes there is some shonky goings on happening but the same can be said of every field of science.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

I think you're taking a narrow facet of psychology to declare the whole thing a pseudoscience. Yes there is some shonky goings on happening but the same can be said of every field of science.

I'm not sure I would call it a science in any respect. As I remember a scientific Dicipline depends on Hypothosis, experimentation, and result. A theory relies on Hypothosis alone. I find metrology just as pointless.

As far as I understand psychologists rely on previous documentation and then attempt to slot you in to one of those holes. There are several leading scientists in criminal palaeontology, forensic disciplines, such as DNA, and Morticanal sciences which think of psychology as honestly extremely hit and miss, and as I have seen psychologists throw leads into stupid directions costing much more harm than good I cannot for any amount of respect concidering my personal experience think of psychology anymore accurate than fronology.

The Impact these people have it simply is shocking. 6 months of training and they can cost you years of work.

Psychiatry I have only slightly more respect for. Though in about 80 percent of times when they say its sex related I switch off.

Fatagn!

[Wolfshade]

Polls - I think you might be going out into the realms of sociology.
Most papers written use interviewed patients rather than a poll. Self reporting is notoriously unreliable.

[DarkLink]

Actually, a properly conducted study is remarkably precise. It's just easy to manipulate statistics into saying things they really aren't saying, if you fudge the numbers.


I find metrology just as pointless.

Measuring stuff accurately is pretty frikin' important. Like, really, really important. It matters in everything from where exactly your property lines are to whether or not your computer or car works properly.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

Actually, a properly conducted study is remarkably precise. It's just easy to manipulate statistics into saying things they really aren't saying, if you fudge the numbers.



Measuring stuff accurately is pretty frikin' important. Like, really, really important. It matters in everything from where exactly your property lines are to whether or not your computer or car works properly.

Isn't Meterology the study of weather patterns ?? Like what weather people use??


Fatagn!

[eldargal]

Shoggoth, psychological research rests on the scientific analysis of data as many other fields do. Professional psychologists apply the findings of that data in various ways. Psychology may be unusual in that unlike many other fields the system it analyses is incredibly complex and has many external variables but it is still a science.

Meteorology is the study of weather patterns and it is vital to many industries, notably agriculture. Also things like emergency services, imagine how much more damage a significant storm could do if there was no warning of it's arrival.

[DarkLink]

Isn't Meterology the study of weather patterns ?? Like what weather people use??


Fatagn!

Yes, but you misspelled it, and what you actually said referred to the science of measurements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology). You misspelled phrenology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology) as well. Words matter;).

[Phototoxin]

Phrenology is clearly sensible! but you, having the rear cranial bump of a half-cretenous imbecile and a temple protrusion suggesting ignorace would not realise that as indicated by the bulbous protrusion of the forehead ! ! !

j/k

Pee-sycology is the measured and observed approach to human behaviour, this in itself is a science. There is some hokum which *tries* to be psychology but that's just sullying its name. It's like a nutritionist and a dietician.

Also I'm a tootholgist, its better than dentistry!

[Necron2.0]

Actually, a properly conducted study is remarkably precise.

The key word there is "properly." I've read the results of several "important" psychological studies that in no way could be considered properly conducted. Many telegraph the answer they expect you to give, kinda like Wolfy's post (here) (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33889-Are-big-kits-worth-their-points-pounds&p=326585&highlight=#post326585), where he considers the equally valid points of view between a cynical goddam b@sturd and an enlightened highly-evolved long-viewist. ;)

One of the issues I have with modern psychology is the over-reliance on drugs to solve bad parenting. My nieces ... well first let me start by saying my brother is an idiot and my ex-sister-in-law was/is a worthless bathroom-toilet whore. Her one and only skill in life is the ability to put her ankles behind her head. My idiot brother left his children with this woman, and she's gotten some "doctor" to sign off that the kids all have ADHD, and keeps those kids in a continuous near coma state so she doesn't have to deal with them.

Thing is, if I were born in this day and age, my mom probably would have been badgered to chemically lobotomize me. I used to stutter because I'd have five thoughts trying to express themselves at the same time. As it was my mom had to repeatedly tell school counselors to go stuff themselves. If I were born more recently, and if my mom had given in, I can only imagine I'd be asking people, "do you want fries with that," instead of keeping airplanes from falling out of the skies.

[eldargal]

That is a problem in many fields though, not just psychology. Also I still think you are confusing psychiatry with psychology, psychologists cannot prescribe drugs (unless they are also psychiatrists).

ADHD is considered by the psychological communities in many countries to be grossly over-diagnosed as it is a useful way for schools to brush aside bad behaviour and discipline and fix it by giving them drugs.

[Wolfshade]

Also, "solving" problems with drugs is a lot cheaper than giving therapy..

[Mud Duck]

That is a problem in many fields though, not just psychology. Also I still think you are confusing psychiatry with psychology, psychologists cannot prescribe drugs (unless they are also psychiatrists).

ADHD is considered by the psychological communities in many countries to be grossly over-diagnosed as it is a useful way for schools to brush aside bad behaviour and discipline and fix it by giving them drugs.

The question should be; Why in the name of the dark gods of education are schools diagnosing mental/health issues and prescribing drugs? Some of these have difficulty doing their primary function of educating, let alone medical diagnosis.

[Mr Mystery]

Having worked in a school in a support role, ADHD and Ritalin appears psychosomatic and placebo respectively. And you can tell the kids who genuinely need it, and those to whom it's just trickery (but not quackery).

ADHD, for the most part should be called 'terrible parent syndrome' as its just kids to whom 'no' is a foreign concept married to a dirty word. Those kids come in acting up, take their pill and immediately settle down.

Those with a genuine condition? You can see them fighting it. It's a reason, but they don't let it become an excuse. Half hour after the pill, there is a genuine change!

[DarkLink]

Everything I've read about ADHD seems to point pretty convincingly that human beings were designed by like a million years of evolution to grow and mature by running around playing and having fun instead of getting forced to sit at a desk eight or ten hours a day. Instead of handing out drugs like candy, a little re-design of kid's daily schedule and how we teach math, science, and english is probably in order.

[Wolfshade]

Humans aren't meant to be sedentary, one only needs to look at the studies that show the increased risk of diabetes, cancer or other ills that result in sitting at desk for hours at a time.

But ADHD, there are people who genuinely suffer from this, unfortunately far too often this is mis-diagnosed as the exact symptoms may appear with those with poor diets and/or boundary controls.

The way things are taught are probably an issue, but some of the different methods have been a little strange, where a disucssion about an idea are more important than whether or not the application of the idea is appropriate or even correct.

But again, a lot of this comes down to the easy solution. What is easier, writting a script for a pill or chaning the way in which people live?

[Kirsten]

definitely a lot of diagnoses of ADHD are nonsense in my opinion. I don't doubt the thing itself is real, but most kids diagnosed with it are victims are bad diet and lack of exercise. Working in the benefits office I saw a lot of cases of parents wanting disability allowance for their children, invariably boys. they would claim the kids acted up, wouldn't behave, wouldn't sleep, yet the schools had no issues at all when we asked them. you ask the parents about the kid's lifestyle, and they get them mcdonalds every night with coke, some sweets, don't let the kids go outside, and then when the child wont sleep, must be a medical condition.

[DarkLink]

That's another really good point, I read an article that claimed France basically doesn't have ADHD problems because their psychiatrists or whatever didn't use drugs to try and treat it. Instead, they would recommend adjustments to diet and exercise, and that basically solves the problem. I'll see if I can try and find it.

Edit: Here it is. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd?goback=.gde_131689_member_241821015)

[eldargal]

There was a counter-argument to that that ADHD in France is actually under-diagnosed due to a cultural dislike or prescribing drugs and that the genuine rate of ADHD is much higher. But still considerably lower (half I think) of that in the US.

[Psychosplodge]

well a psychiatrist declared me sane two years ago, shows what they know.

lol, and that's when you stopped taking them seriously?


The question should be; Why in the name of the dark gods of education are schools diagnosing mental/health issues and prescribing drugs? Some of these have difficulty doing their primary function of educating, let alone medical diagnosis.

Don't schools get extra funding to help deal with "problem" children? It's in their interest to slap a label on...

[Phototoxin]

Having worked in a school in a support role, ADHD and Ritalin appears psychosomatic and placebo respectively. And you can tell the kids who genuinely need it, and those to whom it's just trickery (but not quackery).

ADHD, for the most part should be called 'terrible parent syndrome' as its just kids to whom 'no' is a foreign concept married to a dirty word. Those kids come in acting up, take their pill and immediately settle down.

Those with a genuine condition? You can see them fighting it. It's a reason, but they don't let it become an excuse. Half hour after the pill, there is a genuine change!

What about adult females with the condition who state that the ritalin helps them to concentrate?

[Wolfshade]

The quote acknowledges that it is a condition, that there is a change in behaviour for those with it that medicate. Mystery's frustration (I think) is the common mis-diagnosis of it, especially with children, where there are other factors which cause the same symptomatic behaviour. Things that routine at home, getting a good nights sleep, a balanced diet and parenting alleviate without needing to medicate.