Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I think the way you phrased your sentence is misleading, as though it was generally known by people since that time. Galileo was influential to psychology, particularly with his views on primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities describe the true nature of the universe, and secondary qualities describe our psychological perception of them. Science's role, for Galileo, is the investigation of secondary qualities in attempt to uncover the true nature of the universe.
As the attached excerpt shows, Galileo may have grasped some aspects of reaction time. But thanks to the influence of people like Johannes Muller, the teacher of Helmholtz, the accepted view was that perception was instantaneous.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Perhaps I have just forgotten what science is, but I could have sworn that the scientific method is reliable independently of the scientists using it. Science is not unreliable, because if it were then we would never have used it. Scientists are unreliable, not science.
You're correct though, that no science is independent of scientists. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that we cannot observe both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously, and this extends to the rest of observable matter as well. The very act of observation changes what we observe. The personal error of experimentation can never truly be removed, but it's hardly psychology that can claim this discovery. Human error has been understood since the creation of science. Modern psychologists just claim the victory because it has to do with the brain. This is more physiology than psychology, considering it's a mechanical problem with our biological hardware that has nothing to do with conscious or unconscious cognition.
I'm noticing a trend. You keep citing scientific discoveries of other fields as psychology in an attempt to make it look good, but fail to see that you're just proving my earlier point that psychology doesn't do actual science. It just borrows science. Neuroscience, biology, physiology, endocrinology, these aren't psychology. They exist as separate entities, not subsets within psychology, and not dependent on psychology.
Psychology isn't the pinnacle, as you like to think. In fact, most of science entirely disregards it. Nothing in the field of physics would change if our consciousness was slightly different than it is. Nothing about biology would be different if our consciousness was slightly different. Gravity still works the same way, natural selection still works the same way, lead still has 82 protons, the Coriolis effect still causes strong winds to blow on open plains. The only thing that would change about science as it pertains to psychology would be if humans had a different means of gathering information than our senses. If our senses were fundamentally different, then so too would be science. But not the facts, only how we go about collecting them. And even then, the psychology isn't the important part, but rather just a thing that falls into that subject.
So you see, out of all the studies, psychology is really the bottom, not the top. It's the most dependent on other sciences, it uses the scientific method the least (none), it doesn't really impact the rest of science (but it is still important, make no mistake), and it's the least consistent. The only study that might be beneath psychology is political science, because it has all the same hallmarks of a non-science, but on a deeper level.
What does it mean that scientists are unreliable but not science? That's like saying bakers are unreliable, but their cakes still come out good. At least bakers follow a specific recipe, scientist have a general method. In the philosophy of science you'll see how difficult defining what science is and what it does. Every step of the scientific method is inundated with the subjectivism and personality of the scientist. Psychologists follow the scientific method, if psychology isn't science, then the method is flawed.
To visualize what I'm saying, imagine you have blocks stacked up to form a tower. If you take a bat and hit the top or the bottom block, which will most likely bring down the structure? The bottom one. It doesn't make sense to say psychology is at the bottom, but nothing is affected by it. You're using bottom as a synonym for lower status, and not in the structural sense that I used.
Physics and Chemistry are the bottom blocks. Above it is Biology; and above that is Psychology. Each block depends on the lower ones. When you study neuroscience, half the time you're studying chemistry, because that's what neurons and neurotransmitters are made of. It doesn't make sense to say neuroscience steals the discoveries of organic chemistry in an attempt to make itself look good. All of science is inherently interdisciplinary.
A good psychologists needs to know the science upon which a mind is built, you're right in that I can't do my job without knowing everything else. Each field specializes in a different aspect, but they are not independent. Psychology and neuroscience are two sides of the same coin. You can couple many sciences into duets of form and function: Chemistry (form) & Physics (function); Anatomy (form) & Physiology (function); Neuroscience (form) & Psychology (function). You don't have physics without atoms, physiology without organs, and psychology without brains.
The most basic definition of psychology is the study of human behavior and cognition. Anything that has some affect on behavior and cognition is my jurisdiction. You mentioned endocrinology. The majority of hormones, besides being involved in homeostasis, will affect your behavior. Oxytocin doesn't just help a mother breastfeed her infant, it creates bonding with the child. Vasopressin regulates fluid retention by the kidneys, but it also influences your sense of thirst. The adrenal gland releases epinephrine, prepping you for action. Testosterone, estrogen, LH, FSH, all influence sexual behavior. I have to study all this.
Yes, I know that I'm not using top and bottom the same way you were. But what you said is that if psychology was unreliable then so too would be the rest of science, which is just flat out wrong. Psychology is not the foundation of anything, but with that comment you seemed to say it was.
To elaborate on my point about psychology borrowing science, try to think of some concept of psychology that isn't interdisciplinary. Every discipline of science has concepts unique to it, but psychology is just a collection of things discovered by other disciplines. Neuroscience overlaps with chemistry, sure, but it has its own unique studies and discoveries and concepts that don't fit into any other fields. Aerodynamics overlaps with physics, but is unique in that it studies fluidity and mobility of airborne objects. But no part of psychology isn't derived from another discipline. This is not to say that psychology isn't important. It is unmistakably important. But it is not, in itself, a science. It's the attempt to use scientific knowledge from other disciplines to explain a natural phenomena. The key difference here is that at every step of the scientific method, a psychologist becomes another type of scientist, experimenting in other more specific fields. Psychology is just an umbrella term to denote any concepts of other disciplines that fall under the category of behavior and cognition.
Hope this clarifies things. I must admit, I'm getting tired of the words psychology, science, discovery, and discipline. I'm going to leave this thread while I have my sanity. Cheers.
Jared Alesi,
Nice post! I would disagree on one detail. Psychology should be viewed as a legitimate science, at least the experimental half of it which follows scientific protocols. If we eliminate it as a science because it borrows from the other sciences, then we have a problem. Biology borrows from chemistry, and chemistry borrows from physics. Since psychology is supported by the other sciences, we can see that a collapse of chemistry would profoundly affect psychology. Not so clear is the idea that a collapse of psychology would profoundly affect physics, chemistry, or biology. I agree with you that John 61X Breezy puts in a real sales pitch for psychology!
John 61X Breezy,
The whole point of the scientific method, and peer-reviewed journals, is to minimize the various kinds of delusions and errors! Psychology's contribution is to understand these errors and, perhaps, find additional ways to be on guard. If psychology never existed it would still be the case of the scientific method doing its job. We would still have good science. Experimental psychology is a part of science, not a condition for the existence of good science.
The basic assumption is that our senses do relate to reality though our interpretation may often be in error. If we don't make that basic assumption, then there is nothing left to talk about! So, we begin with senses that do report something real (our basic assumption), Experience derived from experimentation gives us our basic bearings (that's a door, that's a mountain) and the scientific method applied to countless studies, often with high tech equipment, takes us deeper into a true understanding of reality. The consistency of scientific results and the interlocking of scientific disciplines into a seamless fabric are not going to go away regardless of what kind of failures might await psychology.
Ok, take for example the concept of confabulation. Its the idea that we continually construct a narrative around our hidden motives; that all of consciousness acts like a press secretary, whose job it is to make sense of the president's questionable behavior, and make it appear reasonable.
You mostly get to see this in action when something goes wrong. In split brain patients, if you show an image to the right hemisphere, and then ask the left hemisphere to perform an action related to that, they are able to do it. However, since communications between the brains is split, the left doesn't know the reason why it did what it did. When you ask them, instead of saying they don't know, they'll come up with some explanations that seems reasonable to them.
We can't escape the fact that we developed the scientific method; that we did so because it seemed reasonable to us, and because we believe reason is something we are capable of doing. I don't see how we can escape ourselves when we do science. We're the ones that ask the research question, we design the experiment, we conduct the experiment, we collect the data, we analyze that data, and we interpret that data.
All of this depends on us being reasonable. So are we truly reasonable, or do we just come up with reasons for the things we do?
John 61X Breezy,
The fact that we tend to create mental stories to explain things is true enough, but that's the whole point of peer-reviewed journals. When interesting results are reported, other scientists duplicate the experiment or create critical varieties of the first experient, to confirm the results. That tends to rule out personal biases and limitations, equipment failure, as well as other hidden errors. Do realize that scientific conclusions don't stop at what seems reasonable. Those conclusions lead to various predictions which, if confirmed, add credibility. Science is self-checking in that sense, and we are not so delusional as to render the process mute. We did get to the moon! Obviously, science works quite well in understanding our reality.
Consider also that much scientific knowledge today goes far beyond what once seemed reasonable, and some of it still seems way beyond common sense! If reasonableness, based on our mental stories, were all powerful we would never have discovered quantum mechanics, back holes, and relativity. Science, done properly, allows us to escape a false reasonableness.
I agree, but not in the sense you seem to mean. For one I tend to make a hard distinction between science and technological advancements, going to the moon falls more as a technological achievement, but that's besides the point.
My issue in the previous comment wasn't so much personal biases, but rather, fundamental short-comings in how all our minds work. In a sense, for example, we are all deluded that the color red exists. We all see it, we all know that it is there; except that it isn't there, the color red is constructed by all our brains. It isn't a personal bias, its a species-wide delusion. So my question would be, how many other things we think are true, but aren't?
When it comes to peer-reviewed journals, I have a few objections. Firstly, that when something is peer-reviewed, the objective of your peers is to inform the editor whether or not your paper is original, valid, and a significant contribution to the field; it isn't there to make sure its true in any meaningful way. Secondly, that the whole publication process is known to incentivise positive results, which means the researcher is actively looking for ways to get them. Thirdly, that its possible that nobody ever attempts to replicate your experiment. Once its published, these papers become primary sources.
Social psychology recently had a replication crisis, precisely because the publication process doesn't double check your results. A new generation of psychologists went back and tried to replicate, or apply new methods to old papers, and came up empty. It makes sense that this crisis first appeared in psychology, because they are the ones who study these sorts of issues. But once it started, it quickly spread to other fields. Philosophy had their own similar crisis. Medicine and nutrition are going through their own now. And my prediction is that this wave will keep on going until it reaches the "hard sciences."
I think the history of science shows we're making all this up as we go along. We don't know what science is, we don't know how to define it, and we certainly don't know how to apply to new problems. Science is something that only makes sense in retrospect.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
John 61X Breezy,
If science is made up then so is psychology, which is a science, yet you seem to be using psychology to invalidate science and, therefore, psychology!
History shows that over the years science, because of its self-checking nature, has given us a deeper and deeper view into reality. You don't get to the moon on made-up stories! You have to actually know something--a lot of things. Science has often had to back track and correct errors. You don't do that if you are just making stuff up as you go along!
We don't know how to precisely define a cat, either, but that does not render the concept meaningless. As to new problems, the scientific method readily applies to new problems. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff! It sounds like post-modernist crap.
As to the color of red, I agree that it does not exist outside of us. I wouldn't call it a delusion, though. It is how normal people sense a certain range of electromagnetic wavelengths. If our eyes somehow evolved to see only 10 centimeter microwaves, coins would be invisible to us. But, we would still be able to feel them and, if probed at sufficient detail, we could make out the image they bear. A bar of metal gives the impression of no empty space, but physicists know that it is mostly empty space.
The point you have missed here is that our own ways of seeing the world do not constitute a door beyond which science cannot pass. We can build a variety of instruments that measure things we cannot perceive directly. We know we are on the correct path, or close to it, when models of reality correctly predict unsuspected and dramatic things. How can you ignore all of this and say that science is made up as though any story would do? You're not making any sense at this end.
This is a beautiful thread, much valuable information that all of us can use.
As an observation....
Many atheists believe that the road to helping others see the truth lies in these arguments or in understanding them. Listen to Matthew Delahunty or Hitchens or Harris or anyone else in a debate and you inevitably end up here, at these topics. "Arguments from A, B, C, D, E, etc."
Unfortunately, in my opinion, all of these cerebral arguments, these intellectual exercises, alienate the majority of listeners instead of helping them identify with the facts being presented.
Once the discussions go complex, the audience is left swallowed in a barrage of intellectual confusion that only a very small percentage of listeners can even, moderately, grasp.
Eighth grade level discussion and writing is what wins the day. The majority of the world only thinks on an eighth grade level - at best - which is why most of these arguments have little positive impact and most often, end up in exactly the opposite result - people crawling back into the good "feeling" of ignorance and comfortable acceptance of remedial logic, reason, and rationality.
I'm not saying we need to fit our languaging into a conversation with a motive of conversion, but what I am saying is that we lose a great many arguments because we over articulate facts and ignore the truth that the majority simply cannot grasp the complexities of these advanced ways of thinking and reasoning.
Simplification is critical, in my opinion, to help people see more clearly the facts that will help them break free of the ignorance of the even more simple anti-logical, fully emotionally driven paradigms in which most people are stuck.
I believe that we lose both, ourselves and our audience when we go philosophy and intellect on them. What most people really need is someone who can simply articulate basic rational thinking who can show them that these intellectual arguments are valid but are not necessary for an understanding of the simple fact: There is no credible evidence that shows the existence of any god or gods. All evidence points to the simple fact we exist without the need for fairytales to support this simple reality.
Only intellectuals arguing with intellectuals cause the need for the convoluted discussions that shoot off on tangents into "is knowledge really known?" or "is reality really real?"
I'm hoping for a common man who can say the truth of what we know without letting intellectuals steal the conversation and take it down roads that most people will never travel. When we can get to this kind of discussion and reasoning, we will no longer need to fight the masses or feel the need to educate them - they will understand simply and already accept the paradigm of truth we all understand is correct.
I wonder if intellectual argument and discussion is of any value to the majority of people who are searching for logical, rational, facts to help them... and, in truth, doubt that most people reach atheism or anything else because of these academic exercises.
However, I appreciate all of this information personally - though it's going to take me a week of reading and re-reading to begin to grasp all of these (important) arguments. I guess I'm not in the same genius category as many here in this forum - I do like hanging around folks who are a lot smarter than I am though... makes me push my own boundaries.
DragonBonz,
That's exactly the feeling I have about Free Inquiry magazine. I think they have gotten better in recent years, but they still have this tendency to soar off into philosophical issues.
Maybe you could give us some examples along with suggested improvements. That's the one thing I missed in your post.
Oh! I almost forgot the most egregious fallacy committed by suburban mothers and the Christian Science sect!
Appeal to Nature fallacy (a.k.a. the Gwyneth Paltrow fallacy): The assumption that something is good or correct because it is naturally occurring, usually in favor of another thing that is not naturally occurring, without any evidence.
For example: Sally asserts that item X is harmful because it is not natural, and that item Y is better for your health because it is natural. This is neglecting the fact that being mauled by bears is a natural phenomenon, while air conditioning is unnatural.
I think the nature fallacy is only a fallacy depending on your moral perspective.
@John
So homeopathy is the moral choice for cancer treatment?
How about measles versus vaccinations? Should we dump sabin and let nature take its course?
"I think the nature fallacy is only a fallacy depending on your moral perspective."
You mean if your moral perspective can encompasses things like cannibalism rape infanticide and incest as good, the view that natural things must be good would cease to be fallacy?
Quelled surprise....I'm not sure this addresses the fallacy itself though, as much as you seem to be claiming that ignoring or denying the fallacy makes it go away.
It's fallacious reasoning would depend on your moral outlook yes. So you seem to be acknowledging that a person's basis for morality is subjective, I can't disagree.
The basis for my morality is centred on the notion I care about the well being of other humans, and to a lesser extent all other conscious animals. This means that the best morals would necessarily promote well being and reduce suffering.
The first is subjective the second will be objective arguments based on how best to achieve the first.
Nature is insentient and therefore indifferent to suffering.
Excellent post sir, by this "reasoning" rape murder and incest to name three would be "good". Whereas curing cancer and malaria and eradicating smallpox as an antithetical three examples would be "bad".
I encountered a poster on the now defunct amazon forums who took this one step farther, and insisted that anything bad could not by definition be natural, she was quite bonkers of course.
To be honest, I don't really know what the word natural means. Sure I hear it used all the time; but it seems to be used differently by everyone.
adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
That sounds about right to me. It also makes the idea that natural = good, and unnatural = bad absurdly wrong.
Yeah, even this formal definition gets under my skin. Aren't human being "derived from nature"?
A nest made of twigs by a bird is natural, but a nest made of twigs by me is unnatural?!? Rawr!
Yes, but I'd say it was fallacious to infer that everything we produce was by extension also natural, humans are natural, human behaviours may or may not be natural, and then it can get very messy. Though I do see your point, and there is an argument that nothing we do can really be unnatural. Word definitions and language have their limitations.
One that really annoys me is the definition of animal, where having defined it in such a way that it obviously includes humans as it should, it then arbitrarily excludes humans for no rational reason.
So you guys ban my other account because logic is to offensive for this site? Just like I suspected!! You guys like to beat straw men but are too fragile to face a real live rational one. Before you ban this account too, think deeply about how diluted you all are thinking to have rational arguments and then banning any one who opposes your logic with truth and science. Gather up your yes men and stay in your fictional world while accusing christians of being bias and irrational. Sounds like the intolerant and dilusional people are of your own kind.
Inex, in case you are still reading these posts...
You wrote, “So you guys ban my other account because logic is to offensive for this site?”
1. It wasn’t “you guys” who blocked your account. It was me. If you have a problem with the actions I take as a site mod, take them up with me via PM and leave the others alone. They didn’t do a thing to you.
2. You assert that your first account was blocked because, “logic is offensive for this site.” If you are literate, I’d suggest you go read the post I made concerning the temporary blocking of your account.
IMO, the last sentence you wrote above applies far more to you than anyone else posting here.
"So you guys ban my other account because logic is to offensive for this site? Just like I suspected!! You guys like to beat straw men but are too fragile to face a real live rational one. Before you ban this account too, think deeply about how diluted you all are thinking to have rational arguments and then banning any one who opposes your logic with truth and science. Gather up your yes men and stay in your fictional world while accusing christians of being bias and irrational. Sounds like the intolerant and dilusional people are of your own kind."
OMD its a miracle folks. He is back! Keeping in mind rule #1. on the forum guidlines, do you have any questions or topics you would like to debate?
@Inexorable
" So you guys ban my other account because logic is to offensive for this site? Just like I suspected!! You guys like to beat straw men but are too fragile to face a real live rational one. Before you ban this account too, think deeply about how diluted you all are thinking to have rational arguments and then banning any one who opposes your logic with truth and science. Gather up your yes men and stay in your fictional world while accusing christians of being bias and irrational. Sounds like the intolerant and dilusional people are of your own kind."
Are you just going from thread to thread, copying/pasting this?
Here's an idea: try arguing FOR something! Your profile says you're a Christian, so try arguing FOR Christianity. All we've had from you so far is anti-atheism rants. Try being FOR something instead. In the wise words of Tim Minchin:
" Define Yourself By What You Love
I’ve found myself doing this thing a bit recently, where, if someone asks me what sort of music I like, I say “well I don’t listen to the radio because pop lyrics annoy me”. Or if someone asks me what food I like, I say “I think truffle oil is overused and slightly obnoxious”. And I see it all the time online, people whose idea of being part of a subculture is to hate Coldplay or football or feminists or the Liberal Party. We have tendency to define ourselves in opposition to stuff; as a comedian, I make a living out of it. But try to also express your passion for things you love. Be demonstrative and generous in your praise of those you admire. Send thank-you cards and give standing ovations. Be pro-stuff, not just anti-stuff."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoEezZD71sc
Excellent post sir.....
*ma'am
Yep. I'm a woman, Shelly.:-D
My apologies Sushisnake. I'm not calling you ma'am though, not unless you insist.
@Sheldon
It's ok, Sheldon, I wasn't offended. My brain doesn't think of itself as pink or blue. Occasionally I'll make a gendered comment based on feminine experience, but only when the need arises.
Pages