• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How reliable is Graphology?

jimbob said:
Yair: Is Biology a science?
Of course it is. This field is governed by the laws of nature. Of course there are some laws which are not yet known. Once they will be known (and physically they are able to be known) the unknown parts of this field will be even more accurate than they are today.

Regards,
Yair
 
Of course it is. This field is governed by the laws of nature. Of course there are some laws which are not yet known. Once they will be known (and physically they are able to be known) the unknown parts of this field will be even more accurate than they are today.

Regards,
Yair
Are you implying that behavior is not governed by the laws of nature?
 
behavior is governed by individualism. Since each person is different from the rest with general behaiors that more common or less common in large enough tested populations. In classical psychology there are no mathematical natural laws which can predict anyone's behavior.
I'm not all that familiar with experimental psychology which is a field that some have mentioned here so I will not comment on what I don't know. I seperate classical psychology from experimental psychology.

Regards,
Yair
 
I'm no expert in chemistry but I haven't heard of a field which is known (I repeat known) in chemistry which cannot accurately predict the outcome of an experiment.

You must be unfamiliar with organic synthesis, a field in which it is still faster and cheaper to examine reactions completely empirically to assess rates, yields and branching ratios of products. In fact, once beyond the most simple of reactions, it is nearly impossible to accurately predict the outcome.


Oh and thinking that we can predict which atom goes where is a little more than I was talking about.

Not really. Just as a chemist does not claim to be able to predict where each atom goes, a psychologist doesn't claim to be able to predict the actions of an individual person. Most of chemistry concerns itself only with the general actions of populations, which is pretty much the same focus of experimental psychology. For the most part, it is only us geeky gas-phase pchemists that worry about such microscopic properties.
 
BTW is anyone claiming either that experimental psychology is NOT a science, or is anyone claiming that non-experimental psychology is?
 
behavior is governed by individualism. Since each person is different from the rest with general behaiors that more common or less common in large enough tested populations. In classical psychology there are no mathematical natural laws which can predict anyone's behavior.
Every snowflake is different, but I have never confused one with an icicle. This "classical psychology" you speak of--could you please cite a source? See, I have taught History of Psychology, and I'd hate to think I was missing something.

Might it be possible that your "classical" is another's "obsolete"? No one blames chemists for phlogiston any more...
I'm not all that familiar with experimental psychology which is a field that some have mentioned here so I will not comment on what I don't know. I seperate classical psychology from experimental psychology.

Regards,
Yair
Again, I'd love to see a source. Otherwise, it just sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.
 
BTW is anyone claiming either that experimental psychology is NOT a science, or is anyone claiming that non-experimental psychology is?

I know I have heard references to "Freud's science of psychoanalysis", but it has been a long while since the last time. And that was in a movie. Hitchcock, I think...
 
Why? Could one claim that other non-experiment sciences aren't sciences?
Surely not, look at Astronomy. Observations, not experiments. I think Astronomy is a science, even through they cannot manipulate independent variables.
And don't tell me not to call you "Shirley".
 
Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc. Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis testing. If you want results and you want them now and you want them stated in strong, certain terms, graphology is for you. If, however, you can live with reasonable probabilities and uncertainty, you might try another method to pick a spouse or hire an employee.
http://skepdic.com/graphol.html
 
I think Astronomy is a science, even through they cannot manipulate independent variables.

No, wait a second. You can crack it up into pieces and test the pieces. Astronomy is all about gravitation, and we can experiment on that (even on planetary scale. Just look at space probe technology.) It´s all about electromagnetic emissions, and we can experiment on that. Actually, astronomy as a science is only possible because we can(could) test exhaustively on Earth what we think happens over there.
 
Of course. I have colleagues who are investigating neurotransmitters which may ultimately explain why I have a video of a lab rat who pressed a lever for food.
Three thousand times in a half hour.
All science should communicate and share data.

Or is that testy?
Ballocks if I know.
 
Mercutio said:
Experimental psychology is wonderful stuff. The "psychology" you speak of is... not experimental psychology. I suspect that you would get close to 100% agreement that it is not science.
my 'classical' psychology reference is towards the:
[QUOTEMercutio]Freud's science of psychoanalysis[/QUOTE].

So if you agree with me that this 'classical' psychology as I refer to it (since it was the beginning of psychology and today it is closer to clinical psychology and other parts of it) then why are you still arguing with me about it? It's not a science, you said so yourself! Don't tell me about your split personality (studied by psychologists?) where once you said it is not a science and then you keep arguing for days and days about it.
I already said that I'm not familiar with experimental psychology and don't know what they can or can't predict but 'classical' psychology is not a science. How more can I make myself clear?
"ggggoooodddd help you" - in the voice of Kramer from some episode.

Regards,
Yair
 
my 'classical' psychology reference is towards the:
Mercutio said:
Freud's science of psychoanalysis
.

So if you agree with me that this 'classical' psychology as I refer to it (since it was the beginning of psychology and today it is closer to clinical psychology and other parts of it) then why are you still arguing with me about it? It's not a science, you said so yourself! Don't tell me about your split personality (studied by psychologists?) where once you said it is not a science and then you keep arguing for days and days about it.
I already said that I'm not familiar with experimental psychology and don't know what they can or can't predict but 'classical' psychology is not a science. How more can I make myself clear?
"ggggoooodddd help you" - in the voice of Kramer from some episode.

Regards,
Yair
Your OP used the phrase "Is it like psychology which is not considred a science but many people rely on and use in everyday life or is it mostly woo?" Your use of "psychology" there was not qualified, and is quite simply wrong. If you use the term "chemistry" to refer to alchemy, you should expect to be called on it. This is every bit as incorrect. If you mean "psychoanalysis", then say so. Do not chastise others for your own misuse of terms. You said you are not familiar with experimental psychology; now would be the time for you to admit your ignorance and quit arguing that your use of the term is the correct one. Humility is your friend...

ETA: You are also still incorrect in your claim that psychoanalysis was A) the beginning of psychology and B) closer to clinical psychology. Psychoanalysis was traditionally part of medicine, not part of clinical psychology--one specialized in psychoanalysis after getting one's medical degree, whereas most clinical psychologists get a Ph. D. or Psy.D. degree. As Corey has pointed out to you, Wundt and James, Fechner, and others, predate Freud--experimental psychology, not psychoanalysis, was the beginning of psychology.
 
Last edited:
my 'classical' psychology reference is towards the:
[QUOTEMercutio]Freud's science of psychoanalysis
.

So if you agree with me that this 'classical' psychology as I refer to it (since it was the beginning of psychology and today it is closer to clinical psychology and other parts of it) then why are you still arguing with me about it? It's not a science, you said so yourself! Don't tell me about your split personality (studied by psychologists?) where once you said it is not a science and then you keep arguing for days and days about it.
I already said that I'm not familiar with experimental psychology and don't know what they can or can't predict but 'classical' psychology is not a science. How more can I make myself clear?
"ggggoooodddd help you" - in the voice of Kramer from some episode.

Regards,
Yair[/QUOTE]

He did not agree with you because you were wrong. Freud was not "the beginning of psychology" or "classical psychology". Freud was a physician and psychologists were practicing science before he came along. Freud and his ilk always had more influence on psychiatrists (M.D.s) than psychologists (Ph.D.s).
 
Of course it is. This field is governed by the laws of nature. Of course there are some laws which are not yet known. Once they will be known (and physically they are able to be known) the unknown parts of this field will be even more accurate than they are today.

Regards,
Yair

I find it strange that you show so much confidence on the one hand and absolutely no confidence of progress on the other. You claim that incomplete knowlege in the case of psychology is evidence that it is not science. And yet incomplete knowlege in physics, chemistry and the like simply shows that we are not done discovering those branches of science.

The only thing you've said that I can agree with is that you don't know what you are talking about. You've called people to provide evidence yet you've offered absolutely nothing to make anything you've said the least bit credible.

Your opinion of psychology is a woo belief.
 
Mercutio & Jeff Corey, I have found that you are arguing for the sake of argument. In order to try and prove a point you start analyzing things as if you were in a court of law and stop using common sense. Sorry, I'm no lawyer and I don't want to be. I'm here to talk to people at eye level and not analyze everything so it will be approved in a court.

Mercutio said:
Your OP used the phrase "Is it like psychology which is not considred a science but many people rely on and use in everyday life or is it mostly woo?" Your use of "psychology" there was not qualified, and is quite simply wrong.
No, it was you who was wrong in assuming I spoke of experimental psychology. It was you who started talking about experimental psychology which I did not talk about. You have a problem with the term psychology? o.k. that's understandable since psychology has many fields associated with it like psychoanalysis, experimental psychology and more. In a court of law the lawyer would have asked to which field in psychology I am referring to. That was your job to do so you have failed in your scrutiny of what I was saying. Shame on you. Why not ask then to which field in psychology I am referring to if you think you know so much about it? Why talk about experimental psychology when I was not referring to that at all (I have mentioned that many times in my posts). Ask next time before starting to argue and trying to prove a point which is not relevant to the OP.
The term psychology is what most people would use for describing clinical psychology which is the most accessible of the psychological fields for the layman. If you have a problem with this term that is something you will have to deal with in your weekly visitings at your psycholgist. In addition, if you do not agree with what a poster is claiming when he is using that widely used term, then ask him/her to which exact field of psychology he is referring to. Don't jump to conclusions and talk about irrelevant things which the OP did not mean.

Now you want to talk about Freud? Freud is taught in ALL the universities which teach clinical psychology. He is one of the most famous people who contributed to the expanded field of psychology even though his theories remain controversial. He is often times referred to when speaking about psychology:
In 1930 Freud received the Goethe Prize in appreciation of his contribution to psychology and to German literary culture
Will this quote not stand on firm ground in a court because of the use of the word 'psychology' and not something else like 'psychoanalysis'? maybe, but that is your huge problem not mine. Get over it or stop posting in forums which are intended for people of all walks of life and not just from the field of psychology.

oh, and BTW, Freud's theories still remain controversial because psychology is not a science!!
Maybe now you can understand what I am saying.

Lastly, I'm sorry if I have been rude to you two but I really believe you were arguing for the sake of argument which is not what I had in mind in starting this thread. You have to understand that people here are from all professions and their terms are sometimes not the correct terms that a professional in that particular area would use. It is up to you to clarify exactly what the OP is referring to.

Regards and no hard feelings,
Yair
 
Molinaro, It is clear you did not even understand what I was talking about in that quote. Maybe because of my bad english, or maybe because of your ignorance or lack of reading comprehension.

Read again my posts and try to understand. It is all there.

Regards,
Yair
 
I understood it perfectly. You use a set of reasoning to support your claim and then reject the same reasoning where it does not help you.

It is all there.
 

Back
Top Bottom