From
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/
Intro:
"...
Since its first appearance in 2003, this article has become required reading in a number of college-level psychology courses. Because the original article was directed toward nonspecialist readers considering psychological treatment, students of psychology should be cautioned that the terms "psychology" and "clinical psychology" are used interchangeably...."
Conclusions:
"...At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make these wild claims, offer these questionable therapies, only because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science..."
"...In the final analysis, the present state of psychology is the best answer to the original inquiry about whether it is scientific, because if human psychology were as grounded in science as many people believe, many of its historical and contemporary assertions would have been falsified by its own theoretical and clinical failures, and it would be either replaced by something more scientifically rigorous, or simply cast aside for now. ..."
"...But this is all hypothetical, because psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science, and therefore are free of the constraints placed on scientific theories...."
note: I didn't read the article itself just glanced at the conclusions.
Maybe you should read articles, especially before using thier conclusions:
First off, the first quote. No evidence, no statistics, no context. So an article gets read in a class, what does that mean?
What is the context? What is the use of the article, perhaps as an example of philosophy being applied to the use of words?
So not a truely meaningful statement and truely and argument with merit. Some people even teach freudian pdychotherapy , gestalt and existemtailsim. Boes that mean they have merit or meaning.
here is one quote from the article and it shows that the author is engaging in editiorial meandering that has a political spin and very little relevance:
Over the history of the DSM and as a result of valiant efforts, this "bible" of clinical psychology has come to define more and more conditions as evidence of mental illness.
See that right there, it shows he either just makes stuff up, abuses terminology or doesn't know what he is talking about.
the DSM is a 'classification' tool for the description of the various reasons people get treatment. there is a whole section on medical disoders that impact treatment, there is whole section of life functions. There are five axis and not everything that is on Axis I is a classic 'mental illness'. So they are wrong from the get go. More political philosophy.
As an example, in the current edition, the following conditions are defined as mental illnesses:
Stuttering
Spelling Disorder
Written Expression Disorder
Mathematics Disorder
the four above are usually labeled as learning disabilities, even if they are coded on Axis I, just as the 'developmental disabilities' are, so agaig, this person is on a soap box, talking politics, not reality.
Caffeine Intoxication/Withdrawal
Nicotine use/Withdrawal
Oh gosh, i suppose the fact that people come in asking for help quitting smoking has no releavnce to this author particular political agenda.
Sibling Rivalry Disorder
Phase of Life Problem
these are again reasons people will seek help or impact a persons mental health. i suppos ethat sibleing trying to shove each other down stairs is not relevant and that aperson hwo has an adjustment disorder because they just retired is irrelevant as well, or the fact that they are lonely becaus ethey just moved to a nursing home.
Putting aside for the moment the nebulous “phase of life problem,” excuse me? – “Sibling rivalry” is now a mental illness?
Strawman argumment, political statement, irrelevant.
Yes, according to the current DSM/ICD. And few are as strict about spelling as I am, but even I am not ready to brand as mentally ill those who (frequently) cannot accurately choose from among “site,” “cite” and “sight” when they write to comment on my Web pages.
thanks b-head, I didn't learn to read until i was 8 because of dyslexia, something like 85% with both dysedeic and dysphonetic dyslexia in combination never really learn to read well. What does that do to you in scholl?
As to “mathematics disorder” being a mental illness, sorry, that just doesn't add up.
No what doesn't add up in this persons ability to make a critical argument based upon understanding of what they are discussing, tilting at windmills does not make them giants.
So just because you can program software does not mean that you can make a reasoned and critical argument based upon a layman's misundetsanding of what you think psychology is.
I give the essay a 'D', it does not have relevant citations of definitions, it does not try to categorsie and address the major issues or schools of psychology. the only reason it does not rate an 'F' is because it well written.
I would hate to see what garbage this person has to say about other areas like Aspergers syndrome , victim related truama and other things they want to pretend they know something about.
