The Fine-Tuning Argument: A Ball at the base of a Mountain

[el ايمان]

Freud is not the only individual to deal with the concept of the ego. Why did you reference him them claiming you were being lenient and not shooting me down?

But he is the person who introduced the concept to the rest of the world. You introduced Freud, own up to it.

Do you only have showers when you are dirty? Showers are a daily, habitual routine regardles of whether or not you are dirty.

I happen to get dirty quite easily, so yes, whenever I have a shower I am dirty at the time.

You should re read the article. The primary doctor is in no way making the claim chimpanzees posses morality.

You should re-read the article. VanderWaal contends that other primates possess the roots of morality, which is an awareness of what interactions and activities are beneficial or detrimental to society and the individuals in society. It is not me alone that believes that those are the criteria humans use to determine what is basically moral or basically immoral.

The lazy schmuk may go out and look for job because bumming off of someone else ruins his self-esteem. A predator is a predator to fulfill physiological needs such as hunger. Anyways, if a predator did find esteem from being a predator we could conclude that such a being was a seriously disturbed and sick psychopath.

Except the lazy schmuck does not go out and look for a job because the lazy schmuck's self-esteem is not so easily hurt by seeing hard-working people. That is the situation I presented, that it is an accurate reflection of some of the members of our society today. Predators exhibit many behaviors of dominance that differ depending on the animal and which are not directly related to "hunger".

Why do animals engage in territorial disputes? It has to do with resources. Land provides resources such as food and so on.

I've not met an animal that eats all of the food in its territory. Why does it need excess?
[quote]

[truthreality]

(emphasis added)
(emphasis added)
Are you backtracking

No.

or attempting to clarify?

Yes.

Earlier you said, “The existence and study of mental illnesses such as depression have led scientists to conclude that the mind and body(including the brain) are separate.” You never provided evidence of any scientist claiming that the mind and body are separate so I have no idea which scientist you’re referencing.

David Burn and Aaron Beck. The book is Feeling Good.

Are you now claiming you disagree with “scientists” you made an unqualified reference to?

No.

BTW-the mind-body duality is interesting to philosophers, not neuroscientists.

This link http://www.scimednet.org/mind-and-matter says otherwise.

What’s funny is reading back through your posts and observing unsubstantiated opinions

This article http://www.science20.com/searching_m...and_mind-87984 states that studies have shown that eight weeks of meditation measurably changed certain regions of the brain. Meditation deals with the mind. Evidence shows we can change our brain, not just by physical activities such as running. Even diseases such as obsessive compulsive disorder can be changed with psychotherapy which deal with changes to the mind. We can even overcome incredibly deep seeded habits as well.

This article http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...terview&page=2 states that changes in the mind affect changes in the brain before the mind changes the brain.

that wander from claiming the brain and mind are separate, they’re somehow independent but related to there’s a significant relationship between the two. Perhaps you’d like to pick one horse to ride.

I am on one horse and my contention is clear but let me repeat so there is no issue in the future. The mind and brain are connected and there is a significant relationship between the two. The mind, however, is not completely "run" by the brain. That is the independence and separation I am referring to. It is like the separation between software and hardware. I will get to your argument against my analogy later in the post...

Oh yeah, that’s better. Now all we have to do is read everything they’ve ever authored or coauthored and search for even the slightest indication they agree with your contentions.

I a summarized their findings and gave you the name of their breakthrough book, Feeling Good.

The basic premise is this. Change your thinking, change your mood.

Read it for yourself.

Here’s where this analogy fails:

My analogy does not fail. My analogy is used by neuroscienctists and psychologists. Reference one of the above links I showed you.

A computer with no software can still be powered up, it will turn on and all the hardware can be determined to be functioning properly.

I specified PC (personal computer). A personal computer is useless without an operating system. The operating system is part of systems software. Similarly humans (personal computer) are useless without software(mind).

Software by itself is just lines of symbols.

A personal computer won't run without software.

It can’t do anything.

I beg to differ.

It has no function or purpose until it’s installed on a hardware platform.

Hardware has no function or purpose in relation to a personal computer until software is installed.

In fact software is always written with a specific hardware platform in mind.

A person's mind is also created with a specific body in mind...

A program written for the PC won’t execute on a Mac. Code written to run on the Android architecture won’t run on iOS without modifications to the code.

Thanks for basic operating systems101.

Software without hardware is completely useless.

I specified PC (personal computer). Hardware without software is completely useless.

Hardware without software won’t function at its full potential but it will run.

A PC (personal computer) will not run without software, period.

So now you’re agreeing that changes to the brain affect the mind (behavior)?

Of course the brain affects the mind. The mind also affects the brain. It is a relationship.

Still haven't picked a horse?

I am clearly on one horse. You just can't keep up.

Because the brain produces the mind (the cumulative output of the brain’s functions) which in turn gives us the illusion of free will.

The next sentence I write is the result of free will you will know this because I will say free will. Free will.

This conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Have you seen my posts? I introduced the concepts macro and microevolution to Senor Hont.

Who cares if he can. Evolutionary biologists can and have.

Do you remember 4th grade book reports? What was the purpose? To summarize large sums of information in your own words.

This would be a perfect time implement what you learned from book reports.

If you can't summarize and articulate information with your own words your argument is useless and you are just parrot. If I wanted to hear what Dawkins had to say I would ask Dawkins.

“People” don’t have a problem, theists and others who don’t understand evolution are the vast majority of those who insist there are gaps and have their favorite gap-filler at the ready.

Quite frankly even those who claim to support evolution don't fully understand it either.

Well, you did, then you sort of did, then you didn’t. I’m no longer sure what point you’re arguing from or which horse you're riding.

By now my contention should be clear to you.

Your point is an opinion, one you have repeatedly failed to support with any evidence beyond your contention.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ot-your-brain/

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun...&b_start:int=1

http://www.coolunknown.com/index.php...d=52:your-mind

http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=55

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/back...ficproof1.html

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/doe...our-brain.html

http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/mindandbody.htm

Your haphazard flip-flopping between the use of brain and mind suggests to me that you don’t have a very good idea of the difference between the two.

Explain to me exactly how I "haphazardly flip-flopped" between the brain and mind. My separation of the mind and brain as two categories is correct. Even if you assume the mind is controlled by the brain it is incorrect to refer to them as on entity.

You have an issue interpreting. Let me make it easier for you to understand. Meditation deals with the mind. Studies show that eight weeks of meditation measurably changed certain regions of the brain. Therefore the mind affects the brain. Simple logic right?

Psychotherapy deals with the mind. Studies show diseases such as obsessive compulsive disorder can be changed with psychotherapy. Therefore the mind affects the brain. Comprehende?

The major issue here is that you don't understand the difference between the mind and brain which is why you get confused.

Your statement that I am flip flopping between the mind and brain is absolute B.S. and it is deceiving. I am using the words mind and brain in the correct context.

Evidently you fully understand this “complicated relationship” if you can dismiss the claim that “the mind is run by the brain”.

Back to my PC analogy. Hardware(brain) does not completely run software(mind). Software (mind) is run by the user(person). They have a relationship, however. Even the relationship between software and hardware is complicated. Think about how complicated the relationtionship between the mind and brain is then.

Nice try but the contexts are not the same. Hitchens’ comment can be applied to scientific claims lacking evidence to support them.

Hmm..atheists are quite open to take Biblical verses out of context and prove a different point.

Here’s a little something to consider, written by a neuroscientist:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...nist-rebuttal/

Lol. You are no better then me. You are using a neuroscientist who holds the same viewpoint as you and is just as critical of creationism as you are.

[truthreality]

But he is the person who introduced the concept to the rest of the world. You introduced Freud, own up to it.

Wrong. He is the first person to introduce ego into the west.

Except the lazy schmuck does not go out and look for a job because the lazy schmuck's self-esteem is not so easily hurt by seeing hard-working people.

How would you know? Do you have a deep relationship with this people? Even lazy schmucks have self-esteems.

That is the situation I presented, that it is an accurate reflection of some of the members of our society today.

I strongly disagree that your statement is an accurate reflection of some of the members of our society today. More like a prejudice superficial generalization.

Predators exhibit many behaviors of dominance that differ depending on the animal and which are not directly related to "hunger".

You know what you call individuals who gain esteem out of dominating others? Bullies. Domination is not the healthy self-esteem Maslow is referring to.

I told you from the beginning I would not respond to your statement because it was absurd. I was doing you a favor.

[minorwork]

Says who? You?

Very astute. Also a clinical psychologist, Paul Lutus. http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/..._Success_Story

A number of studies including a meta-analysis of many studies of CBT, show that, when systematic biases are adjusted for, CBT's imagined superiority over other therapies evaporates. All these studies support the idea that psychological treatments cannot be distinguished from each other or from the Placebo Effect.

Psychology is routed in the scientific method.

Don't you mean routed BY the scientific method? 'Raped and pillaged' would be more colorful verbs.

Lol. Because it gets the most results from patients.

Certainly it will if the controls are sent home. OR hopefully to a bar. But what kind of a control is this if it is obvious who is being treated and who isn't? Placebo effect. Dodo effect.

In any case you've offered but a description and no explanation, no theory for why CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy) is more effective than the benefits from talking to my bartender or a sympathetic friend. That's why I'm not compelled to acknowledge psychology as a science.

Yet it's techniques are the result of theory and research.

Astrology and homeopathy claim research and theory, eh? Sciences?

Ian Stevenson, Professor of Psychiatry, was head, until retiring in 2002, of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia. Here Ian had theory and research of how reincarnation could help understand human behavior and development. What he did NOT have that was necessary to be considered a scientific theory was a testable potentially falsifiable null hypothesis of his theory. Therefore, not science.

Stevenson considered that the concept of reincarnation might supplement those of heredity and environment in helping modern medicine to understand aspects of human behavior and development. He traveled extensively over a period of 40 years to investigate 3,000 childhood cases that suggested to him the possibility of past lives. Stevenson saw reincarnation as the survival of the personality after death, although he never suggested a physical process by which a personality might survive death.

Because the two alternatives are unrelated. CBT deals with completely different methods of elevating one's moods then a bartender. Changes in medication don't necessary change the practice of CBT either. Also, there is no reason that if we found something new from successful bartenders that CBT wouldn't change. Your what if makes no sense.

The Placebo effect makes sense doesn't it? If you can get the same results by talking to a sympathetic person as you can by CBT, that shows CBT lacks an underlying theory of explaining how it works. And so is NOT scientific, just a favored technique of the therapist that because of the Dodo and Placebo effects believes his technique is scientific when it is not.

CBT deals with changes in mood due to one's thought process.

How are mood changes and thoughts measured? What units are they expressed in? The instruments used to measure these are calibrated to what standard? You have no means to measure this stuff. Not scientific. No way to correlate data between the two without measurements. Not scientific.

Bartenders provide a beverage that changes one's moods due to intoxication.

Measuring alcohol content and reaction times. Better. But moods? Measuring moods? I'm not yet compelled to believe you've the instrumentation to do so.

Also this is a horrible example because alcohol has shown only to worsen mental illnesses. It will never be an effective substitute to cognitive behavior.

I don't think I mentioned drinking with the bartender, only talking while the bartender listened. The Dodo Effect is equally as explanatory and predictive, and is present in talking to the bartender, CBT therapist, or maybe even some artificial personality such as ELIZA.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...er-get-better/

Cognitive behavior is capable of being falsified. If we find that thoughts have no effect on a person's moods, we can conclude that cognitive behavior is false. The exact opposite has been shown.

I offer as the cure for his illness, $50,000, and after doing so he presents the same as another who had undergone CBT, what is the basic explanation for the illness and cure unique to CBT that can be expressed in a testable null hypotheses form which result would be unique to CBT and eliminate the cash gift as a competitor technique? CBT and clinical psychology are only beginning to be evidence based. Today scientific approaches based on modern biology, neuroscience and genomics are replacing nearly a century of purely psychological theories, yielding new approaches to the treatment of mental illnesses.

Again this is an incorrect statement. Psychology is grounded in the scientific method.

Not yet it isn't. Evidence based clinical psychology? Not yet, but on its way. Consider how it is that mental illness is determined. Red cell count? White cell? Blood sugar? Free testosterone? Which antibody indicates mental illness? No. None of those because mental illness is not evidence based. The DSM-V will soon be the Bible of psychological standard. DSM-II said homosexuality was a mental illness and so it became treatable by psychiatrists and Michelle Bachman's husband STILL buys into that Dodo. Where is the science? Not yet seen in clinical psychology.

[Senor Hoint]

Truthreality, the police may take an assertion of murder seriously at first, but they are not going to arrest someone for murder if there is no substantiating evidence. The police are a poor analogy anyway, because as you say they are required, for obvious reasons, to take crimes seriously. That's also why it's a crime to lie to the police or claim there is an emergency when there isn't.

Just answer the following question honestly: if someone walked up to you and claimed they were god, but then refused to perform any miracles and instead started babbling some vague shit about a "greater design," and then walked away without providing any more evidence, would you believe them?

[truthreality]

Very astute.

I disagree with you.

Also a clinical psychologist, Paul Lutus. http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/..._Success_Story

A number of studies including a meta-analysis of many studies of CBT, show that, when systematic biases are adjusted for, CBT's imagined superiority over other therapies evaporates. All these studies support the idea that psychological treatments cannot be distinguished from each other or from the Placebo Effect.

CBT does not cause a placebo effect. It causes real results.

Feeling Good, David Burns (M.D.):

"Actually, cognitive therapy is one of the first forms of psychotherapy which has been shown to be effective through rigorous scientific research under the critical scrutiny of the academic community."

"Several years ago a group of investigators at the University Pennsylvania School of Medicine...Drs.John Rush, Aaron Beck, Maria Kovacs and Steve Holland began a pilot study comparing cognitive therapy with one of the most widely used and effective antidepressant drugs on the market, Tofranil...the either or research design was chosen because it provided the maximum opportunity to see how the treatments compared. The outcome of the study was quite unexpected and encouraging. The cognitive therapy was at least as effective, if not more than, the antidepressant drug therapy.

"Of particular importance was the discovery that many patients treated with cognitive therapy improved more rapidly than those successfully treated with drugs."

That's why I'm not compelled to acknowledge psychology as a science.

Psychology is a science.

It relies on the scientific method to treat it's patients.

There is a problem (ex. mental illness). The problem (mental illness) is researched. The hypothesis (ex. form of treatment) is stated. The hypothesis (form of treatment) is tested. The results (ex. of the patient) are analyzed . A conclusion (ex. summary) is stated. The cycle is then repeated.

The Placebo effect makes sense doesn't it?

Of course I understand the placebo effect but CBT is not simply a placebo effect which is why both psychiatrists and psychologists recommend patients undergo such therapy in addition to medication.

Feeling Good, David Burns (M.D.):

"...a recent study by Drs. Ivy Blackburn and her associates at the Medical Research Council at the University Edinburgh in Scotland. These investigators have shown that the combination of antidepressant drugs with cognitive therapy can by more effective than either modality above."

If you can get the same results by talking to a sympathetic person as you can by CBT, that shows CBT lacks an underlying theory of explaining how it works.

CBT does have an underlying theory. CBT has been shown to effectively treat and cure depression (you can refrence my quotes throughout this post). Clinical depression doesn't go away just by talking to a sympathetic person. It's a deep seeded illness.

And so is NOT scientific, just a favored technique of the therapist that because of the Dodo and Placebo effects believes his technique is scientific when it is not.

The quotes I have posted by well respected doctors completely refutes this nonsensical statement.

How are mood changes and thoughts measured? What units are they expressed in? The instruments used to measure these are calibrated to what standard? You have no means to measure this stuff. Not scientific. No way to correlate data between the two without measurements. Not scientific.

By this logic then psychiatry is a useless field as well. Which we all know is wrong.

Depression is a mood disorder http://www.emedicinehealth.com/depre...article_em.htm.

According to Feeling Good, David Burns M.D.:

"It is not the actual events but your perceptions that result in changes in mood."

Burns states that events happen but it is how we "interpret the events with a series of thoughts that continually flow through your mind" that causes changes in our moods.

"Your feelings are created by your thoughts and not the actual events."

This makes sense. According to http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/causes-depression the causes of depression include abuse, conflict, major events and personal problems.

All of the previous causes of depression can only affect us once they have been processed in our mind by our thoughts. These causes don't actually cause physical changes in our brain until we interpret them with our mind.

David Burns in feeling good states "it is an obvious neurological fact that before you can experience an event, you must process with your mind and give it meaning."

Measuring alcohol content and reaction times. Better. But moods? Measuring moods? I'm not yet compelled to believe you've the instrumentation to do so.

This is an incredibly backwards idea.

Psychiatrists are able to treat patients medically by using medications that focus on treating specific mood disorders. How are they able to do so if they are unable to measure moods?

Psychiatric medications deal with specific chemicals in the brain to change and control patient's moods. Antidepressant medications(ex. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), anti psychotic medications(ex. serotonin and dopa mine receptors) and mood stabilizing medications (ex. lithium).

If psychiatrists were not able to measure moods we would be completely unable to treat patients. In order to treat patients it is imperative that psychiatrists understand their moods. The medicines psychiatrists prescribe interact with specific chemicals in the brain to bring patient's moods to normality.

For example one cause of depression is the lack of serotonin in the brain. Antidepressants work to lift serotonin in the brain. The results patients achieve are not placebo effects they are real results.

Psychiatric medications are responsible for stabilizing numerous patients who would hurt deeply without them.

You are well behind the times.

I don't think I mentioned drinking with the bartender, only talking while the bartender listened. The Dodo Effect is equally as explanatory and predictive, and is present in talking to the bartender, CBT therapist, or maybe even some artificial personality such as ELIZA.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...er-get-better/

The positive relationship between a patient and bartender that you are referring to results from the cathartic relief a patients get from venting. This, however, is not enough to treat patients with mental illnesses. Feedback is a must so that patients can deal with the unusual thoughts that cause unusual swing in their moods.

A psychologist uses CBT to systematical work with the patient and their thoughts to heal that patient's unusual moods.

Patients with mental illnesses have distortions in their thinking http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk...nd-depression/. Psychologists use CBT specifically address these distortions. When these thinking distortions are cured the patient reports significantly elevated moods as referenced in Feeling Good by David Burns.

I offer as the cure for his illness, $50,000, and after doing so he presents the same as another who had undergone CBT, what is the basic explanation for the illness and cure unique to CBT that can be expressed in a testable null hypotheses form which result would be unique to CBT and eliminate the cash gift as a competitor technique? CBT and clinical psychology are only beginning to be evidence based. Today scientific approaches based on modern biology, neuroscience and genomics are replacing nearly a century of purely psychological theories, yielding new approaches to the treatment of mental illnesses.

Your understanding of mental illnesses is primitive at best.

Negative thinking has a tremendous deal to do with mental illnesses:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...46640283900139

http://web4health.info/en/answers/bi...-thin-depr.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tionary&page=2

Medications do not completely fix thought processes. CBT is the method used to correct distorted thought processes. If you read the above links you will realize that the mind has just as much to do with depression if not more than the brain.

I have dealt with many psychiatrists whose sole focus is on the brain and medication. They unanimously state, however, that therapy is a must to go along with medical treatment. Why is this?

Medication is not enough to cure mental illnesses among patients.

Major hospitals such as Kaiser, UC Davis, Mercy, Heritage Oaks, and so on provide therapy programs along with medical treatment.

In fact when patients are held involuntarily they are required to attend some sort of in patient or out patient therapy program.

Not yet it isn't. Evidence based clinical psychology? Not yet, but on its way. Consider how it is that mental illness is determined. Red cell count? White cell? Blood sugar? Free testosterone? Which antibody indicates mental illness? No. None of those because mental illness is not evidence based. The DSM-V will soon be the Bible of psychological standard. DSM-II said homosexuality was a mental illness and so it became treatable by psychiatrists and Michelle Bachman's husband STILL buys into that Dodo. Where is the science? Not yet seen in clinical psychology.

Again by this logic psychiatry is an unscientific field. Obviously it is not. I have explained why psychology is a science. It follows the scientific method.

[truthreality]

I happen to get dirty quite easily, so yes, whenever I have a shower I am dirty at the time.

This contradicts your argument that animals clean themselves when they are dirty. Everyone gets dirty quite easily which is why we clean ourselves consistently.

You should re-read the article. VanderWaal contends that other primates possess the roots of morality, which is an awareness of what interactions and activities are beneficial or detrimental to society and the individuals in society.

Umm...no you should re-read the article:

"Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies."

The article's point is that animals share biological the building blocks for morality. Their morality is no where even close to human morality. I have stated from the beginning that animals and humans share many similarities. Animal's may have a primitive form of morality but it is no where close to humans.

Rhesus monkeys starve themselves to help their future primates as the result of their nature as social beings, not advanced moral beings. Empathy is a natural part of both humans and animals as social beings.

Btw your interpretation of animals helping themselves as proof of morality shows your ignorance of evolution and natural selection:

"Cooperating with or helping other organisms is often the most selfish strategy for an animalThis is called reciprocal altruism. A good example of this is blood sharing in vampire bats. In these bats, those lucky enough to find a meal will often share part of it with an unsuccessful bat by regurgitating some blood into the other's mouth. Biologists have found that these bats form bonds with partners and help each other out when the other is needy. If a bat is found to be a "cheater," (he accepts blood when starving, but does not donate when his partner is) his partner will abandon him. The bats are thus not helping each other altruistically; they form pacts that are mutually beneficial." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

It is not me alone that believes that those are the criteria humans use to determine what is basically moral or basically immoral.

Anyways what does morality have to do with Maslow's hierachy of needs?

Did you change the topic because your argument is weak?

I've not met an animal that eats all of the food in its territory. Why does it need excess?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territo...ic_territories "Territorial animals defend areas that contain a nest, den or mating site and sufficient food resources for themselves and their young."

This is a lower order need not a higher order need.

Please before advising someone else to pick up a book, pick up one yourself.

[minorwork]

I disagree with you.

OK, you caught me bluffing. You are not astute. Better?

CBT does not cause a placebo effect. It causes real results.

And placebos don't? Placebos cause real results.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...r-back-pain-e/
Placebos are getting stronger.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/m...placebo_effect
Especially in children.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0050166

Feeling Good, David Burns (M.D.):

"Actually, cognitive therapy is one of the first forms of psychotherapy which has been shown to be effective through rigorous scientific research under the critical scrutiny of the academic community."

"Several years ago a group of investigators at the University Pennsylvania School of Medicine...Drs.John Rush, Aaron Beck, Maria Kovacs and Steve Holland began a pilot study comparing cognitive therapy with one of the most widely used and effective antidepressant drugs on the market, Tofranil...the either or research design was chosen because it provided the maximum opportunity to see how the treatments compared. The outcome of the study was quite unexpected and encouraging. The cognitive therapy was at least as effective, if not more than, the antidepressant drug therapy.

"Of particular importance was the discovery that many patients treated with cognitive therapy improved more rapidly than those successfully treated with drugs."

Geez. If they're wrong then you are too. Do you think I give any more credence to your authorities than I do you? Show the theories, the null hypotheses statements of the theories, and the experiments used to falsify the null hypotheses.

Psychology is a science.

If it is you will be able to list the objective empiric parameters that are its field of studies. The units of their measurement and the instrument of their measure. The DSM-IV? Supposed to be the standard of mental illness trying to emulate sciences such as physics and its idea of gravity. But homosexuality was once considered a mental illness and was deemed treatable though there was NO EVIDENCE for that. Then fields, OTHER THAN PSYCHOLOGY, yielded research countering the psychological assessment of homosexuality as a mental illness and political pressure forced the removal of homosexuality from the psychologists list of mental illnesses. But I do suppose you could imagine political pressure repealing the law of gravity, eh? Psychology science? Phhht.

It relies on the scientific method to treat it's patients.

What does that even mean when a given patient can present the same to 5 different psychologists and get as many diagnoses which lean toward treatments favored by the clinicians doing the diagnosing. Will the DSM-V even contain Aspergers as a mental illness? That's some science when insurance companies start influencing what is and is not a treatable mental illness, but since psychology is not a science they can get away with it.

There is a problem (ex. mental illness). The problem (mental illness) is researched. The hypothesis (ex. form of treatment) is stated. The hypothesis (form of treatment) is tested. The results (ex. of the patient) are analyzed . A conclusion (ex. summary) is stated. The cycle is then repeated.

Like you just demonstrated. Not a science. Hypothesis is misrepresented as treatment with no explanatory value. Try this, no, try this, no, try this, no, etc. is NOT science.

Does research address and potentially falsify one or more core theories that define the field? What core theory of psychology have you given? Oh yeah, the mind is distinctually separate from the brain. You said that trying to distinguish animals from humans I think it was, so you could justify stating the universe's creation was fine tuned for humans and not animals because, though having brains, they don't have minds.

"Cognitive psychology, which as I stated before is the most widely used form of psychology among clinical psychologists, states that our brain activity and emotions [B]are the result of our mind, specifically our thoughts. This is the exact opposite of your statement. According to cognitive psychology our behavior is not determined by our brain and physiology but rather our thought process and mind. Cognitive psychology is fully accepted in science." ~ truthreality

Cognitive psychology is not even accepted as a science by honest psychiatrists and psychologists. Want to sell a pop psychology book on it there must be some fondling of science and the rubes fall for it every time.

Of course I understand the placebo effect but CBT is not simply a placebo effect which is why both psychiatrists and psychologists recommend patients undergo such therapy in addition to medication.

What the hell? Where did psychiatry come from? Still no core theories of psychology. Anecdotal accounts only. Not even close to science.

CBT does have an underlying theory. CBT has been shown to effectively treat and cure depression (you can reference my quotes throughout this post). Clinical depression doesn't go away just by talking to a sympathetic person. It's a deep seeded illness.

You have not given a theory. Sammelweis did not give a theory to explain why the maternity ward nurses patients were more apt to survive than the patients doctors attended, he just noticed that the docs did NOT wash their hands and the nurses did. Not a theory. Why should the mere washing of hands make a difference? If he had presented the germ theory and laid it out in its null hypotheses form and tested it, THEN he would have an explanatory generalization to predict what would happen when germ laden hands came in contact with the pregnant women. Same with your CBT statement. No theory. Just description and therefore definitely not science.

The quotes I have posted by well respected doctors completely refutes this nonsensical statement.

Well respected doctors err and are sued. Authority is not nor shall it ever be better than the scientific method for determining the truth. Those doctors are apparently as capable as you of NOT knowing what science is about.

By this logic then psychiatry is a useless field as well. Which we all know is wrong.

Psychiatry does avail to the use of sledge hammer pharmacology though. Psychology? You haven't by some chance been reading that pop psychology book Feeling Good, have you?

This is an incredibly backwards idea.

Bullshit comes out of the back end of a bull so, yeah, that's where I look for psychological "science." No measuring device yet? How about on a scale of 1 to 10 how depressed are you today? Yesterday? Hey I should patent that testing device.

How close did I come to cutting my wrists today? 6 inches from the skin? 5? Touching the skin? There be another patentable device measured in scientific inches too.

Psychiatrists are able to treat patients medically by using medications that focus on treating specific mood disorders. How are they able to do so if they are unable to measure moods?

Pharmacology is science. A pill or injection cannot be detected from the substance tested by the testee or the attendant administering the substance. What is CBT's placebo look like that can match the requirements of a double blind test?

Psychiatric medications deal with specific chemicals in the brain to change and control patient's moods. Antidepressant medications(ex. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), anti psychotic medications(ex. serotonin and dopa mine receptors) and mood stabilizing medications (ex. lithium).

Can you see the irony that you have gone to pharmacology, a science, to rescue psychology from the snake oil, preacher, fortune teller, John Edwards types that psychology would like to distance itself from?

If psychiatrists were not able to measure moods we would be completely unable to treat patients. In order to treat patients it is imperative that psychiatrists understand their moods. The medicines psychiatrists prescribe interact with specific chemicals in the brain to bring patient's moods to normality.

What's this? Does CBT come in chemical form now? I thought mind and brain were distinct?

Sure wish you would decide which horse you want to ride and get off that Dodo psychology.

For example one cause of depression is the lack of serotonin in the brain. Antidepressants work to lift serotonin in the brain. The results patients achieve are not placebo effects they are real results.

Placebo effects are not real? How do you distinguish between real results and placebo results then? Placebo results are real and are a problem for drug testing.

Psychiatric medications are responsible for stabilizing numerous patients who would hurt deeply without them.

Better than transorbital lobotomies? Same sledgehammer type of therapy but with chemicals.

The positive relationship between a patient and bartender that you are referring to results from the cathartic relief a patients get from venting. This, however, is not enough to treat patients with mental illnesses. Feedback is a must so that patients can deal with the unusual thoughts that cause unusual swing in their moods.

A psychologist uses CBT to systematical work with the patient and their thoughts to heal that patient's unusual moods.

And who says there is an unusual mood? The man being paid to say so. No healing takes place for what there is no test for in the first place.

Patients with mental illnesses have distortions in their thinking http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk...nd-depression/. Psychologists use CBT specifically address these distortions. When these thinking distortions are cured the patient reports significantly elevated moods as referenced in Feeling Good by David Burns.

People without mental illnesses can be found to have distortion in their thinking if the finder is getting paid to do so. I'm not getting paid today, but I have found some serious thinking distortions of what this one guy is thinking constitutes science. Is he mentally ill? That is an example of the scam nature of psychology.

You are well behind the times.

Your understanding of mental illnesses is primitive at best.

Again by this logic psychiatry is an unscientific field. Obviously it is not. I have explained why psychology is a science. It follows the scientific method.

Trying to hurt my feelings? Gonna be tough when you're coming from the equivalent of witch doctors, voodoo, and scam artists.

In the 1950s the American Psychological Association (hereafter APA) commissioned a study of the scientific standing of psychology. In 1963 the result was published in six volumes as "Psychology: A Study Of a Science" (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963). New York: McGraw-Hill). Sigmund Koch, the director of the study, came to these conclusions:

"The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion." (emphasis supplied)

"The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."

Koch's distinction between describing and explaining is crucial to the issue of scientific standing. It is a simple matter to describe something, and descriptions are often repeatable, but one cannot shape a scientific theory based only on description. For a scientific theory, one must try to craft an explanation of what has been described. With an explanation in hand, one can design an experiment to see if the explanation has general validity. And crucially, the existence of a testable explanation allows the possibility of falsification, the key property of all scientific theories.
But as it is now constructed, psychology doesn't try to explain behavior, it is satisfied to collect descriptions of behavior. Those therapies that exist are meant to respond to descriptions, without ever taking the dangerous step of offering a testable, falsifiable explanation.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/


And now for the coup de grace, dispelling any delusion of psychology or psychiatry as being a science.

[el ايمان]

This contradicts your argument that animals clean themselves when they are dirty. Everyone gets dirty quite easily which is why we clean ourselves consistently.

It doesn't contradict any argument I have brought forth in this discussion.

Umm...no you should re-read the article:

"Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies."

The article's point is that animals share biological the building blocks for morality. Their morality is no where even close to human morality. I have stated from the beginning that animals and humans share many similarities. Animal's may have a primitive form of morality but it is no where close to humans.

It's funny that you feel comfortable quoting me and saying "no", only to repeat what I said in the quote.

Btw your interpretation of animals helping themselves as proof of morality shows your ignorance of evolution and natural selection:

You deny that humans evolved from primates, therefore I am ignorant of evolution?

"Cooperating with or helping other organisms is often the most selfish strategy for an animalThis is called reciprocal altruism. A good example of this is blood sharing in vampire bats. In these bats, those lucky enough to find a meal will often share part of it with an unsuccessful bat by regurgitating some blood into the other's mouth. Biologists have found that these bats form bonds with partners and help each other out when the other is needy. If a bat is found to be a "cheater," (he accepts blood when starving, but does not donate when his partner is) his partner will abandon him. The bats are thus not helping each other altruistically; they form pacts that are mutually beneficial." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

"Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self"

Anyways what does morality have to do with Maslow's hierachy of needs?

I don't believe I claimed that it did.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territo...ic_territories "Territorial animals defend areas that contain a nest, den or mating site and sufficient food resources for themselves and their young."

Is this why my dog tries to scent-mark the entire neighborhood?

[truthreality]

It doesn't contradict any argument I have brought forth in this discussion.

Yes it does. Your point was that animals clean themselves only when they are not dirty. Your statement has proved that we are constantly getting dirty.

It's funny that you feel comfortable quoting me and saying "no", only to repeat what I said in the quote.

That's not true you failed to mention the most important part of the article: "Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality".

You deny that humans evolved from primates, therefore I am ignorant of evolution?

In that statement I used the wrong word accidentally. I meant to say humans did not evolve from Apes but a common ancestor to both. Apes and primates sound the same to me so I said primates when I meant apes.

"Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self"

What seems as altruistic is often times selfish.

I don't believe I claimed that it did.

You inferred it. I brought how Maslow's hierachy of needs separates us from animals and you began to talk about animals and morality which is a different topic.

Is this why my dog tries to scent-mark the entire neighborhood?

The dog could be doing this out of fear for safety reasons. Another lower-order need.

Here is something else that separates humans from animals:

"Humans are special compared to other mammals because of their very prominent prefrontal cortex (or frontal lobe).The prefrontal cortex (particularly the upper two-thirds of it, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) can be regarded as the rational centre of the brain; or the rational brain."http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/19/complexity-explained-16-evolution-of-intelligence-and-consciousness/

[truthreality]

Geez. If they're wrong then you are too.

It's not just them:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...herapy&f=false

http://www.webmd.com/depression/feat...nitive-therapy

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...apy_000439.htm

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cog...herapy/MY00194

http://www.naturaltherapypages.co.nz/cognitive

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the...al-anxiety.htm

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...l-therapy.html

http://www.sharecare.com/question/wh...vioral-therapy

http://www.medindia.net/news/Cogniti...ts-91487-1.htm

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Artic...a-patients.htm

http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ety/379-1.html

http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...hotherapy.html

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...help-with-adhd

http://www.umm.edu/patiented/article...n_000008_9.htm

You said that trying to distinguish animals from humans I think it was, so you could justify stating the universe's creation was fine tuned for humans and not animals because, though having brains, they don't have minds.

I never said animals don't have minds.

Pharmacology is science.

Your claim was that there is no way to measure moods. How do pharmacologists provide the correct medication to treat patients then?


Interestingly pharmacists only provide psychiatric medication with the authorization of a psychiatrist. The pharmacist just follows the orders of the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist is the one who diagnoses the illness and chooses the medication to provide to the patient.

What's this? Does CBT come in chemical form now? I thought mind and brain were distinct?

I stated from the beginning the mind and brain are connected. I have clarified this time and time again. The distinction and separation I am talking about is that the mind is not completely run by the brain as Hardware does not completely run Software.

Sure wish you would decide which horse you want to ride and get off that Dodo psychology.

Dodo science? I am not sure:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...humanbehaviour

http://psychiatry.jwatch.org/cgi/con...ull/2012/319/1

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/wome...0821_1194.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...n-1925439.html

http://www.chester.ac.uk/postgraduat...ural-therapies

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0022890

People without mental illnesses can be found to have distortion in their thinking if the finder is getting paid to do so. I'm not getting paid today, but I have found some serious thinking distortions of what this one guy is thinking constitutes science. Is he mentally ill? That is an example of the scam nature of psychology.

Mental illnesses aren't real? According to http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154543.php "In the UK over one quarter of a million people are admitted into psychiatric hospitals each year, and more than 4,000 people kill themselves."

Distorted thinking is not related to mental illnesses?:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0403111536.htm

http://health.howstuffworks.com/ment...> thinking.htm

http://www.ehow.com/about_5130922_ne...disorders.html

http://stress.about.com/od/professio...tortions_2.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ng-be-negative

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...910979,00.html

http://psychiatry.med.miami.edu/For-...l-Illness.aspx

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/758808

http://www.mentalhealth.com/story/p52-dps6.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/emotiona...thoughts.shtml

Gonna be tough when you're coming from the equivalent of witch doctors, voodoo, and scam artists.

Here is the proof that psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy are more than just the result of witch doctors, voodoo, and scam artists:

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/ar...4&journalID=62

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v14.../4002134a.html

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/cbt.aspx

http://www.beckinstituteblog.org/200...to-your-brain/

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/disp.../10168/1285720

http://neurodezign.com/Documents/Sci...quette2003.pdf

http://www.intracarehospital.com/pag...chotherapy.pdf

https://www.uni-jena.de/unijenamedia...2fo7ouqv07.pdf

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...stract/61/1/34

http://thecarlatreport.com/how-do-ps...n-free-article

http://psychiatry.ucsd.edu/OCD_hoarding.html

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v11.../4001816a.html

http://caan.stanford.edu/research_team.html

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/disp.../10168/1926705

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cont...in.awr154.full

[minorwork]

Nothing to say about the video, eh?

Saying, "Here is the proof..." just confirms you don't understand science and are in no position to judge what is or isn't science. Like psychologists who give their opinions because they have no way to test for mental illness beyond their opinion. Psychology is not evidenced based, which it needs to be if it is to be a science. Psychologists will not approve moving to evidence based theories. Why is that, truthreality?

In 2005, Dr. Ronald L. Levant (president of the APA), aware of the above history, penned a daring initiative meant to nudge clinical psychology toward an evidence-based model and away from its present reliance on anecdote and belief. But I think Dr. Levant may have misjudged the present state of clinical practice — on hearing his proposal, rank and file psychologists reacted with a mixture of panic and fury. Here is a quote from Dr. Levant's later defense:

Evidence-based practice in psychology (APA, 2005): "Some APA members have asked me why I have chosen to sponsor an APA Presidential Initiative on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Psychology, expressing fears that the results might be used against psychologists by managed-care companies and malpractice lawyers."

The rank and file are right, of course. Any effort to move clinical psychology toward an evidence-based model would expose what until now has been a well-kept secret — clinical psychology is not remotely evidence-based, relying instead on anecdotes, dubious extrapolations from animal research, poor-quality retrospective studies and simple belief. To publicly air these facts would trigger a number of legal and practical consequences that psychologists would be wise to avoid. And so far, they have — after a brief uproar in 2005, the APA proposal has been shelved.
In his most revealing sentence, Dr. Levant says, "... psychology needs to define EBP in psychology or it will be defined for us." This acknowledges something that Levant emphasizes in his article — EBP is a proposal, a wish, not a reality. Scientific psychology lies in the future — at present, we only have the acronym.

During the 2006 meeting of the American Psychological Association, psychiatrists admitted they have no scientific tests to prove mental illness and have no cures for these unproven mental illnesses (more here). I've always thought the first step to learning something new is to acknowledge one's own ignorance. It seems the professionals are willing to take this first step.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/