How reliable is Graphology?

[yairhol]

No....I'm sorry to say Molinaro but what you are saying is wrong. plain wrong. I don't know how to make it clearer.
If you didn't understand then what can I say? I take it as my fault. really.

regards,
Yair

 

[yairhol]

Just to make what I was saying about the term psychology is post #98 a bit more clear:
From http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38858

Psychology: The study of the mind and mental processes, especially in relation to behavior. There are a number of fields of psychology. Clinical psychology is concerned with diagnosing and treating disorders of the brain, emotional disturbances, and behavior problems. Child psychology is the study of the mental and emotional development of children and is part of developmental psychology, the study of changes in behavior that occur through the life span. Cognitive psychology deals with how the human mind receives and interprets impressions and ideas. Social psychology looks at how the actions of others influence the behavior of an individual.

Again, clinical psychology is the most familiar of these fields to the layman. If psychology is not a focused enough term for someone, then that person should ask for the specific field that the OP was referring to.

Regards,
Yair

 

[Jeff Corey]

.... 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

This is the James Randi Educational forum. We were trying to educate you. If you choose to ignore us, you are free to do so. But please don't tell us to stop posting so that you can remain secure in your profound ignorance.

 

[yairhol]

Jeff_Corey, you are getting more and more like Sylvia Brown. She too has a way of twisting what has been said to suit her own needs.

This is the James Randi Educational forum. We were trying to educate you. If you choose to ignore us, you are free to do so. But please don't tell us to stop posting so that you can remain secure in your profound ignorance.

From my last couple of posts starting at #98, is this really what you have understood? How were you trying to educate me? by stating irrelant information at a thread intended for something else? No thank you. I was talking about one thing and if my terms were not clear enough for you then you should have asked for clarification. Is there an echo here? I feel I have said all of this before. There's a serious lack of reading comprehension here.
And Yes, I am definately saying to you, or anyone else for that matter, to stop posting in threads that are irrelevant to what you want to say. If you want to show off your knowledge in experimental psychology then start a dedicated thread and shoot a way like there's no tomorrow but why do it in my thread?

Regards,
Yair

 

[drkitten]

Just to make what I was saying about the term psychology is post #98 a bit more clear:
From http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38858

A citation from a medical jargon dictionary isn't helping you make your point about what a separate scientific field is.

Yair -- you're already in a fairly deep hole. Stop digging and start reading.

The OP is still entirely wrong, though, as a little thought would reveal.

As a simple example, you've cited "biology" repeatedly as a science. However, anyone at all familiar with lab work know that it's not 100% predictable. You can do this yourself. Plant four radish seeds in four different containers. Treat them all as close to identically as you can -- and then predict which one will sprout first. You can't. even say that the one that gets the most water (or whatever) will sprout first, because there are other influences that you can't control, microvariations in soil, air, and water, that produce significant macroeffects.

Similarly, once they've all sprouted and are doing well, stop watering them. Predict for me which one will die first. You can't. We know -- it's a "law of nature" -- that plants will die with insufficient water. But which plant is the most sensitive and will die the fastest? We don't know that.

Simiilarly, geologists -- who are scientists -- know a lot about earthquakes. But they can't predict where the next one will be.

Astronomers don't know when and where the next daylight-visible supernova will occur.

And medical doctors can't even tell whether or not you will respond to a particular drug, despite literally thousands of clinical tests on other people.

From your post #3

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
"In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by experiment. "

Psychology cannot predict events in 100% of the cases (I think much less than that) and is not in line with hypotheses proven by experiment since it is not 100% accurate. So I'm differentiating between a field which uses scientific ways in order to broaden its knowledge and between what is considered as science.

Nowhere in the Wikipedia definition is it necessary for something to be able to predict events in 100% of the cases or to be 100% accurate. In fact, no science is 100% accurate or 100% predictive. Psychology -- even clinical psychology -- uses a systemabic methodology to collect information and make predictions about events, supported by a vast host of experiments. It's a science by any reasonable definition.

Deal with it.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...
Is it like psychology which is not considred a science but many people rely on and use in everyday life ...?

Because you said this in your OP.

 

[drkitten]

'classical' psychology is not a science. How more can I make myself clear?

You can't. The problem isn't that your statement is unclear. The problem is that your statement is un-right.

If you tell me that 2+2=5, then no amount of "clarity" will resolve the fundmental problem that your statement fails to be in agreement with reality.

 

[Molinaro]

In psychology there are no 100% predictions and if you will give a certain person two psychological tests at two different times, that person may get two different results based on his mood, tiredness, and what not condition he was in at that time.

Physics is often concerned with the statistical behaviour of large numbers of particles. Exact statements about an individual electron or proton within a macroscopic object is rarely made with 100% certainty. Yet physics remains a valid science.

Psychology is often concerned wiht the statistical behaviour of large numbers of people. Exact statements about an individual person within a society is rarely made with 100% certainty. Yet you claim this is proof that psychology is not science.

It would be devastating if for example Newton's gravitational laws were sometimes correct (or even most of the time correct) but not always like in all cases of psychology.

Evidence? That seems to be a rather strong statement to make about psychology, and with no evidence to support none the less.

I will be happy if you provide some proof for that. Saying something does not make it so.

And would you be the pot or the kettle?

Can psychology measure things in the form of laws and equations? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Learning curves, extinction curves, the matching law, the Rescorla-Wagner model (behaviorism), Ebbinghaus's forgetting curves, serial position effects (memory), [at this point, faced with everything from psychophysical data on sense organs, to social facilitation and loafing effects in groups, to all of cognitive psychology, to cognitive neuroscience, to biopsychology, to developmental, I gave up on individual mathematical equations]. [Sadly, I did note that much--fortunately, not all--of clinical psychology, and much--again, not all--of popular psychology, was immune to such treatment. It is understandable, if ignorant, that some might think that all of psychology was so poorly evidenced.]

Yairhol, why have you ignored the evidence provided by Mercutio, that your assertion about phychology not being predictive, is wrong?

I would say that diagnosing mental disorders is not very accurate either as I've heard several times on the news that this or that person was wrongly diagnosed as having some kind of mental illness where in fact he didn't have it.

Are you implying that the news has never contained a science story that turned out to be wrong? Do you realy consider your statement evidence of anything?

Just for clarification, Meteorology is not classical physics. It is in the Geophysics realm and still has many unknowns. It is a progressive science. Once ALL the unknowns are discovered and computer models will be able to run on computers, I believe it will be possible to predict the weather to a very accurate degree. And I don't want to repeat myself but psychology will never be that accurate no matter how much it progresses.

That is an unfounded woo belief. You have presented nothing to support it other than uninformed opinion.

Right! and psychology can never be in the absolute certainty section whereas physics, biology, chemistry and others can.

Again I ask, "Where is your supporting evidence?".

I'm saying never because psychology is subjective. When dealing with living creatures it is impossible to predict their behavior in all cases every time.

But psychology is not solely about predicting individual behaviour. Just like the theory of how gases behave does not predict the behaviour of individual molecules, in all cases every time. This is what I mean by you using a line of reasoning to support your claim while rejecting the reasoning when it goes against you. You've decided that the only thing psychology is concerned with is predicting individual behaviour. That is patently false, no matter how much you wish it so.

Oh and thinking that we can predict which atom goes where is a little more than I was talking about. This goes into the quantom mechanics realm which is not all known....yet.

So you get to define what areas of science are ok for us to reference. That sure makes it easy to blind yourself to evidence that counters your claims, doesn't it? So why don't you say that psychology is not all known... yet?

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.

That sounds like a reasonable statement about psychology.

In classical psychology there are no mathematical natural laws which can predict anyone's behavior.

And in classical physics there are no mathematical natural laws which can predict any one atoms behaviour, accurately. So what's your point, and more importantly, why do you even think you are making one?

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.

But the science of psychology does not seperate them. What makes you the authority on classification? Or is it simply the fact that your arguments hold no water when faced with the reality of what you just said you don't know much about?

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?

You've made it very clear that you are holding onto a woo belief surrounding your personal definition of psychology.

It is up to you to clarify exactly what the OP is referring to.

Actualy, no. That's the OP's job. And when you find that what you were referring to was wrong, you usualy change your reference instead of trying to redefine the well established terminology.

And Yes, I am definately saying to you, or anyone else for that matter, to stop posting in threads that are irrelevant to what you want to say. If you want to show off your knowledge in experimental psychology then start a dedicated thread and shoot a way like there's no tomorrow but why do it in my thread?

I can think of 2 reasons. First, experimental psychology is psychology. Second, it proves you wrong.

 

[yairhol]

drkitten, like some before you, you didn't understand what I was talking about. This is why I take it as my fault. Maybe I was not clear enough even though I can't imagine how to make it more clear.

I'll try and explain this again.

1. What do you mean when you say psychology - let's refer to psychoanalysis or clinical psychology for those of you who want to be the most accurate in definition. I will keep using the term psychology but refer to the above two examples.
2. Definition of psychology: http://www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/psychology.htm
"Psychology is the scientific study of mental processes and behaviour..."
Is Psychology done in scientific ways - Yes!
3. Is theoretical physics an accurate science? Yes. Why? because it is possible to determine the mathematical equations which describe the laws of nature. The field of electromagnetics is a spectacular example of this. In theory, for any given problem, as complex as it may be but has zero unknowns like boundary conditions, type of materials used, frequencies and so on, I can write a computer model which will describe the behavior of this system in an absolute way which will give me the same result no matter when I run the program or where as long as the computer is strong enough to deal with this complexity.
4. Is QM a science? Yes. Why? because if given all the particles along with boundary conditions and so on, we can build a computer model to simulate the result of this system.
5. Have we already found all there is to know in physics so we can predict anything associated with it? No. There is still much more to discover. But! Once everything is discovered in certain field in physics we can make a theoretical model of it and predict its outcome. In electricity, give me all the data about my system and I will predict its outcome.
6. Will it be devastating if theoretical physics wouldn't be so predictable? Yes. Why? because that would mean that the natural laws behave in a manner which we do not fully understand and cannot possible even fully understand which would collapse our every day lives.
4. Is biology an exact science? I'm not sure. If we know the number of cells on a leaf and the exact amount of sunlight that it gets, and the leaf's chemical contents and all other parameters that we need to know, will we be able to predict its ability to make glucose? I think so but I will not bet my life on it. I just don't know enough about this to make a clear statement.
5. Is psychology an exact science? No because no matter how much we do research, every person is still an individual and you cannot always predict the outcome of an experiment. One (or 100) will bahave as you would expect but then some will not. It is not an exact science.
6. Then how would you define psychology in terms of its connection to academics?
I'll let others do this for me.
Harvard university offers a bachelor of arts to psychology students:
(http://www.publichealth.va.gov/staff.htm)

The national honor society in Psychology states that psychology students receive B.A., M.A. in psychology.. ​

​

(http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_68.asp)​

​

​

​

Standford U. offers BA to psychology students:​

​

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/Forms and Publications/CoTerms/06-07/Co-term requirements 06-07.pdf​

​

​

​

If anyone opposes this please write to them. They don't think it is science either.​

​

And now I'm waiting for everyone to jump on me but really, why take it on me when the leading institutes in the world say it isn't science?

Regards,
Yair

 

[bpesta22]

Since when are undergraduates in any field "scientists".

The doctoral degree is a Ph.D., though we offer the cheesier PsyD for clinicians.

 

[Jeff Corey]

My undergrad degree is a B.S. What you're saying is B.S.

 

[drkitten]

The doctoral degree is a Ph.D., though we offer the cheesier PsyD for clinicians.

Aha! You admit it. You're not scientists, you're philosophers!

 

[Caius Textor]

Strangely enough, philosophers get a D.Phil., not a Ph.D.

And there is also D.Sc.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten, like some before you, you didn't understand what I was talking about. This is why I take it as my fault. Maybe I was not clear enough even though I can't imagine how to make it more clear.

No, I understood perfectly. "Clarifying" an incorect statement, however, does not improve its accuracy.

Psychology is a science. Your statement that "[s psychology an exact science? No because no matter how much we do research, every person is still an individual and you cannot always predict the outcome of an experiment. One (or 100) will bahave as you would expect but then some will not. It is not an exact science" is simply off-base.

As written, that statement also applies to biology, to geolog, to climatology, and in fact, to almost eery field of "science" outside the purely mathematical. You may assume that further increases in our biological knowledge will allow us to make better predictions -- but if you assume that, you have no basis whatsoever for assuming that further increases in our psychologicla knowledge will not allow better predictions. Alternatively, you could realize that we are all individuals biologically as well as psychologically, but that doesn't prevent biology from being a science.

Why would knowing everything about a leaf make biology an exact science, but knowing everything about the brain not do the same for psychology.

]And now I'm waiting for everyone to jump on me but really, why take it on me when the leading institutes in the world say it isn't science?

Because they don't. What an undergraduate degree is called has little or nothing to do with the actual field. At the University of Colorado, for example, one can only get a B.S. in physical education -- physics, bio, chem, geo, and so forth are all "Arts" by that definition. The reason? Diffferential funding, I think. Nothing to do with the content.

Heck, in my current department, you can take a B.A. or a B.S. at your choice, for taking the exact same classes.

The actual organizations that do science uniformly recognize psychology as a science. For example, Psychology is section J of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and "Cognition" is one of the "theme areas" recognized by the Royal Society.

As I said, the problem wasn't with clarity. You're simply wrong. There's nothing wrong with your writing except for the facts that disagree with it.

 

[Molinaro]

5. Is psychology an exact science? No because no matter how much we do research, every person is still an individual and you cannot always predict the outcome of an experiment. One (or 100) will bahave as you would expect but then some will not. It is not an exact science.

Good grief, you are still hung up on the idea that if you can't predict the behaviour of one preson it proves it's not science? Is this some kind of joke or what? I can't believe you are being serious.

If I tell you I have a box with a divider in the middle. One side has a gas at a temperature of 10 degrees and the other side has a gas at 20 degrees. You can certainly tell me the temperature some given time after the seperator is removed and the gases are allowed to mix. But you cannot tell me where any particular molecule will be after the divider is removed.

In the same way, a psychologist could very well make very accurate predictions about the set of results expected from a particular test procedure without being able to make any specific predictions about a singular test subject.

And that is still science.

 

[drkitten]

Strangely enough, philosophers get a D.Phil., not a Ph.D.

... in about four universities world-wide. I think that Oxford is the best known. Where, oddly enough, so do psychologists and other "scientists," as Oxford does not award Ph.D.'s.

 

[yairhol]

As I said, the problem wasn't with clarity. You're simply wrong. There's nothing wrong with your writing except for the facts that disagree with it.

Saying something does not make it so. If you say that facts disagree with it...so you said it. So what. Hell, I'm saying that facts are disagreeing with you. So there!

Why would knowing everything about a leaf make biology an exact science, but knowing everything about the brain not do the same for psychology.

Now you're just plain annoying! You probably know why but I'll explain it to you anyway:

1. What do you mean when you say psychology - let's refer to psychoanalysis or clinical psychology for those of you who want to be the most accurate in definition. I will keep using the term psychology but refer to the above two examples.

Do you now see why I'm saying that you don't understand me? You have made it clear that it's because of your lack of reading comprehension?
Yes...you're right, knowing everything about the brain does go into the fields of psychoanalysis and clinical psychology. You should add: "and that is a fact"

My undergrad degree is a B.S. What you're saying is B.S.

Great comment..........not original but great anyway.

 

[yairhol]

If I tell you I have a box with a divider in the middle. One side has a gas at a temperature of 10 degrees and the other side has a gas at 20 degrees. You can certainly tell me the temperature some given time after the seperator is removed and the gases are allowed to mix. But you cannot tell me where any particular molecule will be after the divider is removed.

In the same way, a psychologist could very well make very accurate predictions about the set of results expected from a particular test procedure without being able to make any specific predictions about a singular test subject.

One of the alternative definitions of exact science is that your results must be able to repeat no matter where you do them or when (my 2 sources for this are my professor from University and a QM professor I work with which are both originally from Russia and that's what they told me that they were taught in University). when dealing with statistics in QM, after sufficient simulations anywhere and anytime you will get the statistical numbers that the equations predict. This is not the same in clinical psychology as your results would differ greatly depending on which population of people you do your statistics on and at what time you did them.

 

[Molinaro]

That's funny. So if I go to the moon will I get the same results as I do here? No, I have to take the change in gravity, absence of atmosphere and other factors into consideration.

And likewise, if you do the same psychological experiment in different countries, or at different times of day you would also have to take into account factors such as differing social norms and customs and the like.

There is no difference.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yairho,
One unfair debating tactic is called "moving the goalposts". You went from a general criticism of "psychology" to a wrong definition of "classical psychology" (because classical psychology wasn't psycho analysis, but the psychophysics of Weber and Feschner or the classical conditioning of Pavlov) and from "science" to "exact science".
Sorry. This is a skeptics' forum and you can't get away with that tactic.