If Psychology continues (even thoughtlessly) with its baseless, unproven, and (actually) UNLIKELY-true (i.e. likely false) core assumptions, won't just a lot of very poor research be done and none good ? Here is something so you can just see the "tip of the iceberg":
Psychology theorists/researchers do not find behavior patterns of a biological nature (showing biological patterning); even more telling is that the VERY RARELY even use the phrase "behavior PATTERNS" -- which absolutely MUST be the way it is. THIS ALONE MAKES THE CASE OF THE CLOSED-OFF AND ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND HOW IT IS NOT A SCIENCE.
[( By the way : If you want to see what a real paradigm shift looks like -- THE paradigm shift -- then see the papers and writings on Ethogram Theory (under my Profile). (Beyond Kuhn.))]
[(As Psychology continues its extreme negligence, I can provide equally extreme well-founded criticism (and put it all down in writing, with all the reasoning and justification -- much better assumptions and arguments than they can mount). I guess its a "standoff": but its me vs [who-knows-who, the heck, or their numbers] -- they certainly might be characterized as cowards, at least in "these parts" (MT).)]
I shall lead you to more than the promised-land: biological consistency WITHIN BEHAVIOR ITSELF; new discoveries we must look for, not just attempting to verify some same old junk theories, BUT RATHER, LIKE OTHER SCIENCES, LOOKING FOR NEW IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES; & I offer better, completely-good empiricism (ALL founded on key directly observable overt phenomenon (here: behavior patterns). See:
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Also the much, much more recent: Book "Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory" (2015-2019)
I an seriously trying to have a perspective and approach which has all the features and dimensions a science theory should . (I have recently provided a good definition for ALL science -- see my recent posts: my Profile -> Research --> Questions and Answers -- via the left-hand column).
This is the TRUE PSYCHOLOGY 2.0
The field of psychology does indeed have some flaws. I think this is a very important topic, but I can't really take this question, or rather advertisement, seriously. I think people would be more inclined to discuss this topic, and maybe even read your advertised articles, if you took a different approach. To be honest, what you have here just looks like combative click bait, and that is unfortunate as I think we might actually agree on a number of these issues. Best of luck to you.
Dear Christopher A Varnon
For something clear and brief to start, try: (this is only 2 pages long): Article Is psychology not a good science, and if not, how might it become one?
Hi Brad,
My intent is to offer some constructive criticism, not on your ideas necessarily, but rather your delivery. I hope you are not offended by this, but I do stand by my original statement. There is a reason I responded the way I did, and although I may be wrong, it is also possible others will feel similarly. I also read the brief article you suggested. I do think the general topic is reasonable for discussion. However, after reading the brief article, I believe my original comment is still applicable. Other readers are free to make their own decisions, but I worry that the "progress disruptor" is how you are currently presenting your ideas. You clearly are very passionate about this topic, and I imagine having limited resources can be frustrating. However, I think you might be more successful if you reconsider how you are communicating your ideas. Best of luck to you.
Dear Christopher Varnon
Seems to me you need to read more of me than 2 pages. How about reading how I say science should be?: (AND then have an opportunity to read a good example) : First these 2: Read:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_an_OVERALL_good_thorough_definition_TRUE_OF_ALL_LEGITIMATE_SCIENCE (especially the first post of the thread, the Question, but some of may Answers may be helpful as well).
and read:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth
(see my Answers there -- look hard, there is more than one)
THEN see a good example of a good example. To AT LEAST start reading an early part of THE START OF A GOOD EXAMPLE, SEE:
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
And for the rest of my rather complete example, you will also have to read:
Book "Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory" (2015-2019)
If you care about science, read more. There is nothing more I can do for you. You seem "trapped" and defensive to me. It may well be hard to start doing things more correctly. Another professor gave me a list of unfounded, untrue "definitions" and said he would talk with me only in those terms; I refused to use a language of nonsense (I read the long nonsensical paper he recommended -- thus cooperating, as I ask of you now.)
Your criticism has not been constructive at all; I see you as attempting to stifle me and stifle progress (at least in some indirect way). Both of your responses were essentially empty; you are just demanding I "fall into form" -- and that is not going to happen.
If you don't want to challenge yourself and be more constructive, you just as well leave the thread. You are just offering criticism of my personal style. If THAT can totally "knock you off", I propose you say "goodbye". Otherwise, let's see you criticize the perspective and approach I take (BUT you must READ).
If you cannot bother to process the shorter (top two links) you might as well put your head back "in the sand".
Psychology is terrible today, for the most part; I try to help and YOU should too. You may say I am "mean" (basically), but I say you are insulting for failing to reasonably look into what I offer. My disgust with much of Psychology's failure to do or try science does anger me -- perhaps this leads to the style or meanness you see (it might look mean if one is rather thoroughly disgusted with the lack of science).
I feel I am wasting my time interacting with you; I just as well confront a man on the street about science, or so it seems to me.
P.S. AND: Are you contending that I have spent 35 years setting up to irritate you (plural) AND WRITING OVER 700 pages (all basically on the same thing and internally consistent) -- just to be an irritant?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology