Of course, I say (and have said): "Yes". Some of the major reasons are:
(1) They cannot doubt major [pseudo-]'assumptions' that are very doubtful.
(2) Related to (1), they cannot consider major possibilities that may well be true.
(3) They don't operate "in-line" with some of the strongest findings in the field
(e.g. major reliable, long-standing results on memory ... [enough said]).
I have addressed ALL of this in my Questions and in Answers on researchgate; seek and ye shall find.
[ P.S. (4) They constantly make things ("theories") up, based on analogies OR 'extrapolating' or "generalizing" from major UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS (aka: beliefs, conclusions, presumptions). They also commonly like to develop systems in the abstract or hodge-podge "theories", assembled largely by intuition. [ A few more items, and this pretty much (or well enough) "covers it" ('it' being general psychological theory). ]
(5) They never stick with inductive work long enough to DISCOVER anything, before developing their hypothetico-deductive systems.
(6) They cannot conceive of innate factors and learning operating phenomenologically at the same time (in effect, simultaneously) -- though both data and arguments, decades old, argue for this.
(7) They not only cannot get past invalid nature/nurture issues, but they already somehow think they are ready to say (actually: presume) whether development is continuous or in stages (and debate that).
All sensible people (as well as ALL other scientists) can see that these problems are absolutely FATAL and there is no possibility of of good, real science. Those who know nothing about it, can well imagine, just from the little summarized HERE. Many psychologists ("theorists"/"researchers") may CLAIM to do several of the good things I've listed above, but their behavior proves, beyond doubt, that these are lies -- though they MAY be deluded enough to 'lie' to themselves. Pathetic, beyond simply mistaken, beyond undesirable. "Learning", itself, remains a myth. ]
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Dear Brad, I do not know about "are psychologists a scientists".... but in my life I several times was in the contact with people that so much were more powerful than me in "practical psychology" that I am sure that at least to investigate these phenomenons could be the matter of psychology)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research