PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE

I doubt the view that psychology is a science and I notice the rhetorical references to psychological ideas that are most popular.

Science requires observation and demonstration and although we might be able to observe our own minds and then compare that to the descriptions others may make of their minds, we cannot, in fact, observe or demonstrate anything about their minds, because a mind is mental content and it is knowable only to itself.

A ‘study’ which is built entirely upon the self-serving testimony of a species which is galactically infamous for its scams and lies is not comparable to a science which is built on repeatable demonstrations which are universally observable.

Most psychological statements serve to criticize and belittle others. The rhetorical pattern is to say, in effect, "I see into her mind, and it is not good." (This non-existing talent is also attributed to invisible gods, making them extra fear-worthy. Imagine all the frightened souls throughout history convinced that some deity viewed their desires.)

It is no wonder that psychology is so often found in the rhetoric of those who promote power of some over others, both secular and sacred. To shame, to humiliate, to cast suspicion on the motives and competence of, and thus to dismiss, the minds of others is always a first step to ruling those others, and ruling them means to dismiss their choices, which are the products of their dismissed minds.

Psychology is the most popular ad hominem argument and one of the most popular excuses for violence. It is an insult made to sound like a scientific observation. It is telling stories about what can not be observed, known or tested. It is much easier than science and it is thus very popular.

A mind is like a book in another person’s hands. You can see the book is there, but only they can read it. Psychology is lying. The lie is to imply the non-existent talent of mind-reading.

It is interesting to me that in Ms Rand’s novels, there is very little psychological insight into her main heroes. We see easily into the minds of Peter Keating and James Taggert and Elsworth Toohey, but rarely into the minds of Howard Roark or John Galt. We see Hank Rearden’s thoughts, but not Francisco’s. One exception would be the very first pages of The Fountainhead where we do see into Roark’s mind - it is a glimpse of happiness. But it is an exception and I wonder if Rand was somehow aware that psychological views into the minds of others are nearly always disrespectful and so she was artistically hesitant to treat her heroes with such presumptuous familiarity.

Later, she and Mr Branden invented what, in my opinion, was an absurd concept, "psycho-epistemology" and Mr Branden even wrote an article - a rogue’s gallery of psychological types - all very creepy thinkers to be sure, but also fiction to be sure. Psycho-epistemology was merely an ad hominem debate tactic and I wish they had not gone down that road together.

I note, in many debates, that examples are offered as a novelist might write them, including the contents of the minds of various characters in the example. Then philosophical or political conclusions are formed based on these fictional pseudo-observations. But in reality, minds cannot be read and policies should not be created based on the pretense that they can be.

Our laws and morals should all be based on the clear premise that every individual mind is a mystery and thus irrelevant to our principles. It should be left out of our philosophical debates entirely. Psychology is flagrantly presumptuous and thus undermines personal relationships. Respectful people treat one another as psychological strangers - for that is what we actually are. We need to judge one another’s actions without pretending to read one another’s minds.

I have no hope of being agreed with on this topic. Psychology is just too popular a rhetorical scam on this planet. It is right up there with theology and collectivism, both of which have already been tossed overboard by Objectivists. If they now toss psychology, they will be left with nothing but facts and logic, and where's the fun in that?.

Post 1

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 - 8:10pm

Hi John,

Not that I'm completely fine with the field of psychology, but I can't agree with this post (as you predicted).

We don't just look at people's actions as if they were some mysterious, causeless form. We interpret their actions based on what we know about them and their possible motives.

If someone is crying, we don't just observe that their eyes are shedding water. We interpret it as a sign that they are sad or upset. If someone is smiling, we interpret it as a sign of happiness or other positive feelings. Would this view of psychology require us to ignore all of this?

I'm curious if we could even communicate with people if we ignored their minds and just looked at their actions. Sure they'd be speaking, but if we don't assume anything about their mental processes, wouldn't we have to assume it's just noise? How can you have a meaningful conversation if you pretend the other person's thoughts and mind are complete mysteries?

If they are complete mysteries, would it be logical to try to persuade them? Or talk to them? Sell them stuff? Offer incentives? Reward them? All of these things assume that there's a mind like our own that we can reach through our words or actions. Can we not even make that much of an assumption? Do we have to assume every action is not purposeful?

In practice, this would be completely unworkable. We couldn't trade for a living because we couldn't assume their were minds capable of trading. We would have to treat every action by a person as completely unconnected to every other action, and even to the outcome of the action. We couldn't even have this conversation, since I'd have to assume that your post is just gibberish written by a mysterious force.

Is this what you intended? Or has the baby been thrown out with the bathwater?

Your post says we can't observe or demonstrate anything about other's minds. That's true only if you mean "directly", but that just makes the statement useless. When I see someone come to work, design a complex circuit for a function he's been asked to do, and discuss with him about why he built it that way, I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest there is a mind I'm interacting with, and not a completely mysterious one, either. I'm able to tell a lot about the content of his mind by how he answers questions, or what kind of statements he's making.

Further, we can gain insight into basic mechanisms of thought by introspection. The fact that the principles we discover apply to other people is well supported by empirical data.

Obviously psychology is different from something like physics where the indirect evidence follows a precise causal chain. People can lie or make mistakes about what's going on in their heads. But the fact that we're able to successfully interact with so many other human beings is a testament to the ability to have some understanding of what they're thinking. Either this awareness and understanding can be based on a rational process of identification (i.e., it is scientific), or we're just fooling ourselves everyday when we interact with other human beings.

Post 2

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 - 9:39pm

We couldn't even have this conversation, since I'd have to assume that your post is just gibberish written by a mysterious force.

From one 'mysterious force' to another, Joe: That was one hell of a poignant statement by you. Great post. Good natured, yet poignant.

;-)

Ed

Post 3

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:01am

John,

Well written, but so, so wrong.

You said, "Our laws and morals should all be based on the clear premise that every individual mind is a mystery and thus irrelevant to our principles." Half of our universe is on the inside. Attempting to go through life with never a thought as to ones inner workings strikes me as not just strange, but dangerous. Like going through life determined that every body is a temple and therefore not to be defiled by doctors. Usually the cry to leave something a mystery is coming from the mystic. There is a level of average happiness and a level of intellectual ability - unique to each person - beyond which they will not rise, unless they look inside.

You said, "A ‘study’ which is built entirely upon the self-serving testimony of a species which is galactically infamous for its scams and lies is not comparable to a science which is built on repeatable demonstrations which are universally observable." Wow! Not the view of man I'd subscribe to. I'm not a scam artist or liar. My friends aren't. Psychology, which you would leave a mystery, is one area that can help reduce lies. Psychology can facilitate increased self-esteem which decreases lies (which are almost always unneeded defenses).

I agree with several of the points you made. That psychology is often used as an ad hominem attack. That people 'psychologize' one another - which is inappropriate even if well intended. And I would never want any laws passed that did not arise from individual rights and one should always be free to what ever you want in your mind. I would agree if you said that many of the mental health professionals went into the field because they haven't solved their own issues. I would agree that much of what is put forth as psychology is nonsense. But having said that, as Joseph said, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As to morals, given the importance of long-term happiness to a rational person, it makes no sense at all not to study experience in general, happiness in particular. Our meaning of life, our justification for living, are located in the experience of living - emotional experiences. Positive emotional experiences - that is where we want to be going - leaving it a mystery is like a road trip with no map and no way to fix any breaksdowns.

I like the concept of a field called psycho-epistemology, but I was also uncomfortable with way it was used.

But no matter what your desires or mine in this area, one fact will remain unyielding: The mind exists and therefore it will be explored.

And I think this is a good thing.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 1/10, 10:05am)

Post 4

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 8:49am

John, the basic error in your view is in this passage:

Science requires observation and demonstration and although we might be able to observe our own minds and then compare that to the descriptions others may make of their minds, we cannot, in fact, observe or demonstrate anything about their minds, because a mind is mental content and it is knowable only to itself.

For the right perspective on this, see my article "667" in the Archives of this forum. Science is not a means of convincing others, but of finding out using reason.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 11:20am

I remember that article ("667") -- I had it tagged as my favorite article for months. Here is the link to it.

Ed

Post 6

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 12:45pm

Thanks Ed. I'm flattered, since you are such a careful and methodical thinker. I'm rather lazy these days, being characteristically busy with editorial work, and trying to find time to finish another, private writing project. I'm also disinclined to engage in online debates. Seeking truth is so much more exciting than proving it to others.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:14pm

Good point, Rodney.

[... and not just about me being such a good thinker!]

;-))

Ed

Post 8

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:16pm

Rodney,

"Seeking truth is so much more exciting than proving it to others. "

Well, said. It not only feels more exciting, but is more fun and actually shows an occasional success.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:50pm

Not to hijack the thread, this seems like a good place to post a picture that moves me strangely:

I came across it while doing some deep thinking about numbers that, in the end, led me to independently invent a certain class of hypercomplex numbers (a process I am writing about). I don't like the painting's style as art, but the notion of Truth as a pure, beautiful woman making a visitation in the dead of night to a solitary thinker, of her breaking through the wall of blindness and darkness, is something that resonates in me. And it is something that I feel privileged to say I have experienced.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 1/10, 3:56pm)

Post 10

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:03pm

I totally get what you are saying, Rodney.

What I don't "get" about this painting (and perhaps I'm being too observant) is how this guy's windows and bunk bed appear to be 2 eyes and a mouth -- the eyes and mouth of an ugly monster. The step-ladder leading up to the bunk bed even makes it look like the monster is drooling!

Did the painter want to show these things that I see -- as if to show that the man has to give up focus on truth for awhile and sleep (in the mouth of that ugly monster)? Do you have anything written by the painter on this painting?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/10, 4:03pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/10, 4:04pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:11pm

I always thought it was just cover art, so would not expect it to be integrated in every detail--or even in many. If I am correct, the things you see were not intentional. In all the times I've looked at this, I did not see the "face." (This might make an interesting thread.)

Post 12

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:15pm

ART-INTERPRETATION IS NOT A SCIENCE

;-)

Post 13

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:20pm

What's the story of the music staff here?

Post 14

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:25pm

Music is, fundamentally, mathematical.

Should we be taking this talk elsewhere, though (instead of hijacking this thread)?

Ed

Post 15

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:43pm

What does music has anything to do with square root of -1? Unless, unless.... I probably can think of something rather far fetched and it has more to do with physics... But what's the story in the book?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/10, 4:44pm)

Post 16

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 7:15pm

[... and not just about me being such a good thinker!]

I have a wooden back-clapper ye can use, Ed..........;-)

Post 17

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 7:18pm

the notion of Truth as a pure, beautiful woman making a visitation in the dead of night to a solitary thinker, of her breaking through the wall of blindness and darkness,

for myself, would have relished a much more eroticness in the work - not just the sensuous visitor, but the aroused man as the consequence - adds to the sensual pleasure metaphor of the occasion.......

Post 18

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 7:40pm

Then he wouldn't need an abacus to count to 21.

:-))

[okay, I'm sorry; but that was bad ... really ... really bad -- I think I should be ashamed]

:-/

Ed

Post 19

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 8:35pm