Morals....

[En_Route]

Going way back to the top, I believe there is a case for "objective morality".  Do no harm to others.  Some of it is pretty black and white.  It is immoral to torture kittens for fun, to rape women because they get their period is immoral.  Lots of other clear cut examples exist.

Layer on top of this consideration of what is good for society per Whitney's post.  Sometimes a person has to be removed from society to stop potential harm to others.  Still, "do no harm to others". 

Then come a lot of "grey" examples.  Abortion? A tough one.

Then finally examples that have nothing to do with "morality".  Being gay.  This is not a "moral" issue.  People opposing it are just a bunch of dumbheads stating "we act the RIGHT way, so you should act like us.  If you don't its immoral".  Hurray for our side as Steve Stills would put it.

Not only do you not NEED to believe in GOD to have morals, I think it complicates the situation. 

So why is it immoral to torture kittens for fun? Simply saying that it is self-evident is not an argument.

[Stevil]

Psychology is a science. If you disagree I suggest you make sure you never find yourself in a room with my wife  

Just between you and me, please don't tell your wife but...

I did a google search for "is psychology a science"
The first hits were
Is Psychology a Science?

At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, 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, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.

Psychology

Criticisms of psychological research often come from perceptions that it is a "soft" science. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique[63] implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics.

Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not an objective science. Other concepts that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured[64] and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic

Psychology as a Science

So, are we any closer to understanding a) what science is, and b) if psychology is a science? Unlikely. There is no definitive philosophy of science, and no flawless scientific methodology. When people use the term "Scientific" we all have a general schema of what they mean, but when we break it down in the way that we just have done, the picture is less certain. What is science? It depends on your philosophy. Is psychology a science? It depends on your definition. So - why bother, and how do we conclude all this?

[NatsuTerran]

That's funny, because my cognitive psych professor had this to say to me:

"I appreciate your feedback.  You're right, not many people believe that the mind can be reduced to chemistry.  When I teach brain & behavior, I stress this in much detail because it's all about the brain and nervous system.   But in cognitive psych because the approach is a little different.  The experimental method is more the emphasis rather than brain physiology.  I think the soft/hard science distinction is a false one.  Some researchers investigate larger entities (behavior or the "mind"), while some investigate the same thing by examining the smaller (microscopic) entities that make up the nervous system.  Cognitive psychology is very well-received in all empirical circles.  After all, atoms and genes were once invisible to us, like the mind.  I think that the experimental (cognitive) approach combined with the neurological approach is the best way to understand ourselves. Most scientists would probably agree with that."

I think I'll take her word over some random google searches.

[Stevil]

I think i'll take a bunch of published articles over some random psych professor.
Plus my own understanding that psychology requires subjective analysis and interpretation.

[ThinkAnarchy]

That's funny, because my cognitive psych professor had this to say to me:

"I appreciate your feedback.  You're right, not many people believe that the mind can be reduced to chemistry.  When I teach brain & behavior, I stress this in much detail because it's all about the brain and nervous system.   But in cognitive psych because the approach is a little different.  The experimental method is more the emphasis rather than brain physiology.  I think the soft/hard science distinction is a false one.  Some researchers investigate larger entities (behavior or the "mind"), while some investigate the same thing by examining the smaller (microscopic) entities that make up the nervous system.  Cognitive psychology is very well-received in all empirical circles.  After all, atoms and genes were once invisible to us, like the mind.  I think that the experimental (cognitive) approach combined with the neurological approach is the best way to understand ourselves. Most scientists would probably agree with that."

I think I'll take her word over some random google searches.

I can't help but jump in here. I have no idea which view is more likely, but I must warn you, don't treat your professors as gods'.

They make mistakes, and some are simply idiots. My sociology 101 professor was a communist and taught B.S. most of the semester. He also humiliated a rape victim in the middle of one of his classes by using the news story of her rape as an example of something... (I think it was an example of how victims remember the truth incorrectly, but that is honestly just a guess.)

Simply because something comes from you're professors mouth, does not automatically make it superior to Stevil's google research.

Again, I'm not sure who is correct here, but don't accept something as fact or more conclusive, simply because it came from your teacher.

[ThinkAnarchy]

To try and eliminate confusion. I lean to there being no real moral objectivism, but do believe their are some truths that society as a whole accepts like murder being wrong. I don't think that has anything to do with morals though, it's simply a principle society realizes they have to accept for their own safety.

[NatsuTerran]

I just read that entire first article that called psychology a religion. Honestly, the whole thing was a blatant strawman of psychology. It is just taking popular misconceptions and running with it. Obviously psych is going to need to extrapolate something from the data, but the data is still there. It has to be interpreted in a logical manner. His 3 step refutation of psychology being a science was completely off base. Just read his null-hypothesis critique to see that he is full of it. He completely ignores the fact that things don't get just published as fact in a journal unless it is rigorously peer-reviewed. To even think that a Harvard psychologist could pull of what his example did just shows ignorance of how the process works.

I also find it funny that a lot of his "support" comes from quote-mining other psychologists. He also uses psychologist and psychiatrist as synonyms for each other. I can't even begin to point out the flaws in that thing.

[NatsuTerran]

I never said I fully accept every word out of a professor's mouth. I have had many instructors with differing views, so obviously I can't just take them at will. But I have become very skeptical about all articles that try to talk about science while not being from an academic database. And plus, my teacher is someone who struggled with the "mind/body split" and used to be spiritual. She has struggled with that as she went through psych so I feel I can trust someone like that who is willing to admit when she is wrong.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I never said I fully accept every word out of a professor's mouth. I have had many instructors with differing views, so obviously I can't just take them at will. But I have become very skeptical about all articles that try to talk about science while not being from an academic database. And plus, my teacher is someone who struggled with the "mind/body split" and used to be spiritual. She has struggled with that as she went through psych so I feel I can trust someone like that who is willing to admit when she is wrong.

I didn't read his articles, I just wanted to warn everyone about not putting to much weight into what their teachers teach them. I have simply been glancing at this thread from time to time. But I'm skeptical of articles as well, but that isn't in and of itself evidence of the articles being wrong. Just as wikipedia being an unreliable source does not mean all the information found their is wrong.

Aren't psychologists and psychiatrists essentially the same thing?  One can prescribe drugs; that is the only difference I have noticed between the two. One may have had more education, but I have never seen anything to suggest they are better qualified. Hell, they keep putting children on ADD for acting like children.

[NatsuTerran]

Psychiatrists are more closely linked to pharmacology, specializing only in diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Psychologist could entail quite a lot. It could be a specialist of Psychology in regards to research, testing, counseling, etc.

Also, the medical model thing is currently a debated topic in Psychology circles. There is concern that the latest DSM is overly broad in categorizing mental illness, and that there is no clear boundary. I am kind of indifferent on the issue. When patients see someone for help, it is assumed that their behavior is problematic and needs fixing. It is true that many things like ADD, SAD, or depression could just be idiosyncrasies of the patient or could be fixed better through other environmental or social changes. But all of this is a whole other can of worms that psychologists do debate on.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html

This article that Stevil posted explains exactly why I think Psychology is a science. In the middle of the page it describes 5 things in bold that make a science: Control, predictability, testing, replication, and objectivity. Psychology passes these more or less. There are some concerns over certain "just-so" stories managing to leak through the cracks. But the thing to keep in mind is that if some researcher looks at some data on his test and comes up with some off the wall assertion based on that, it usually won't be long (especially if the thing got published) for other researchers to pick it apart. Theory forming is a process.

[technolud]

I guess I was suggesting that "morality" can be defined as doing no harm to others.  Thereby torturing kittens is immoral.  Being gay wouldn't be.  How are other people defining morality?

Personal Message (Offline)
   
   
Re: Morals....
« Reply #30 on: Today at 11:43:40 AM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: technolud on Today at 07:14:51 AM
Going way back to the top, I believe there is a case for "objective morality".  Do no harm to others.  Some of it is pretty black and white.  It is immoral to torture kittens for fun, to rape women because they get their period is immoral.  Lots of other clear cut examples exist.

Layer on top of this consideration of what is good for society per Whitney's post.  Sometimes a person has to be removed from society to stop potential harm to others.  Still, "do no harm to others".

Then come a lot of "grey" examples.  Abortion? A tough one.

Then finally examples that have nothing to do with "morality".  Being gay.  This is not a "moral" issue.  People opposing it are just a bunch of dumbheads stating "we act the RIGHT way, so you should act like us.  If you don't its immoral".  Hurray for our side as Steve Stills would put it.

Not only do you not NEED to believe in GOD to have morals, I think it complicates the situation.


So why is it immoral to torture kittens for fun? Simply saying that it is self-evident is not an argument.

[NatsuTerran]

So why is it immoral to torture kittens for fun? Simply saying that it is self-evident is not an argument.

I would say it is wrong because morality should be based on the conscious experience. Once you make that easy assumption (because how can there be morality without life), you just need to understand that who you were born as is merely a product of chance. You didn't choose to be you any more than those kittens chose to be them. And going back to my objective vs. subjective distinction, there are only two variables at play here. 1 is the kittens' suffering and death, which is tangible and objective. The second is your subjective enjoyment of the exercise. Subjective things are more or less *not* necessary at all, they are permissable in most cases when there is no serious objective consequence. To torture kittens is to assume that the actor would not mind being tortured.

[Stevil]

I guess I was suggesting that "morality" can be defined as doing no harm to others.  Thereby torturing kittens is immoral.  Being gay wouldn't be.  How are other people defining morality?

So by your definition, would it be immoral to:
eat meat
use force in self defense
compete in combat sports
compete in contact sports

[Stevil]

Obviously psych is going to need to extrapolate something from the data, but the data is still there.

I am not saying the articles I presented are conclusive proof that I am right. Just showing that I am not alone, and that it is not rare to think that Psych is not a science, these were the first three articles from google search, I wasn't trying to pick ones that specifically supported me. And yes, three is a very small sample set.

I have no doubt that psych utilises some scientific method in order to gather data.
If the data gathering is asking people for their opinion, then it has much subjectivity in it, it is not discrete measurements made by reliably accurate measuring equipment, (do they include +- attributes to account for the degree of inaccuracy of the measuring equipment?)
In science, given the same data, the scientists will come to the exact same conclusions unless of course the theory is wrong or ambiguous. Inconsistencies either prove that the test was faulty or that at least one of the conclusions was faulty.
With regards to psych it is more than likely the conclusions will be different because of the subjective assessment and interpretation.

[Stevil]

Once you have information, it then becomes obvious through rational thought that it can't be wrong if it isn't a choice. The same applies to quite a bit. Science can be used as a tool to rule on morality, it doesn't say things on its own.

If we define that morality is actions based on choice then we must define choice and prove that definition.

If we are suggesting that the rules of physical reality are reasonably modeled by the documented "Laws of Physics" then we must conclude that anything simply adhering to the "Laws of Physics" is doing what it must and hence no choice is evident.

The atheist position (unless of course you don't believe in god but do believe in magic) is that there is no realm other than the physical realm and that all energy/matter within the physical realm are bound to the "Laws of Physics".

So if an atheist is to suggest we choose our actions then you are necessarily suggesting that your choice isn't entirely bound to the "Laws of Physics". You are suggesting that there is a non physical aspect to your choice and hence a non physical aspect to who you are. Theists call this the soul.
Now if the soul is making moral choices, you are then also suggesting that souls have an attribute of goodness/badness and that good souls make predominantly good/right decisions and bad souls make predominantly bad/wrong decisions.

But then again, even if this were true, who would care? Why is it important to distinguish good decisions from bad decisions? Where is the culpability? Do we need to define ourselves as moral guardians and thus punish immoral people or are we to believe that there is some sort of cosmic justice, that immoral people or immoral actions will be ultimately held accountable?