I too am interested to know.

Dear Brad,

Are you not overgeneralizing when you say that psychology is a jumble.? I know of nice and well performed experiments, for example, in the cognitive and experimental psychology. I know that psychology coud be a better science than it is, and that psychology is afflicted by many problems, such as too many theories, journals, publicactions, distortion, artifical fractures, and so on.

If I were a clinical psychology, I would like to take you as a case study. Note that the problems that afflict psychology also exist in other sciences.

I would like to hear from you why and how do you think that psychology is a jump.

KInd regards,

Orlando

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

Your "counter" about " nice and well performed experiments " does not make any kind of reasonable counter to my perspective. Good experiments alone will never naturally develop into a good Psychological science (come together into good theory).

AND, truthfully: I fear you do NOT really know that Psychology could be a better science (or even how it could actually be a science at all, in many cases). I have explained MAJOR things wrong with it (Psychology, its general bases) and apparently you cannot process this information:

** (1) The completely unproven, baseless and unjustified foundational assumptions (basically leading to the attitude that all after infancy or toddlerhood is "learning"; And, this leading to/requiring "embodiment" 'theories' -- assessed by a respected group of peers as UNPROVABLE, ever, of a nature where NO directly-related evidence could ever be found ) . Related to all this, just stated: I have detailed about 5 unproven and likely false assumptions that are behind all major Psychology perspectives and approaches _AND_ where there are biologically more likely (so more likely true) assumptions to replace these travesties. Many of the travesties seem to come from philosophy (e.g. "only man ...")..

** (2) Psychologists very many times, and likely MOST often, do not appreciate what REAL empiricism is. It REQUIRES that every concept/construct be related TO directly observable overt phenomenon (and this being able to be agreed upon -- basically verified -- by any and all others in the field). PERIOD; no exceptions for ANY science. Sometimes the connection to directly observable overt phenomenon may SEEM to be indirect , looking at my view, but I submit it is NOT: the distinct and continuing influences of KEY directly observable overt phenomenon MUST BE and ARE always there [(e.g. major stages AT THEIR INCEPTION , being related like this (directly) at key "times" (and with clear types of circumstances) in ontogeny, and, as indicated: with clear continuing effects -- continuing to be a foundation or basis for related behavior PATTERNS and concepts about those (and at least such as this can always be found and thus suffice for a real science). I have admitted that these overt bases may be very subtle and hard to see ("perceptual shifts", requiring eye-tracking technology, etc.) -- and so, in fact, are the way I 'see' them. Quick P.S. for this segment: BY accepted biological principle and necessarily: BEHAVIOR MUST BE IN PATTERNS; each time you see a reference to "a behavior", that in-itself is a clear indication of science problems.

** (3) Models whenever possible should, in each aspect, be empirically based (see above). And, this should be possible most of the time for that which is common to people (the subject of Psychology). Hypothetico-deductive systems (e.g. models) should ONLY IN DESPERATION turn to theorist/researcher intuition TO ANY DEGREE -- and I see this as likely unnecessary . I see hypothetico-deductive systems in Psychology as extremely similar to armchair philosophy. [ I have actually seen one set of psychologists say they think they should start with a model first, and then look for evidence. This came up in their process of trying to explain abstractions (abstract thought) -- in my view, such abstraction is no problem for empiricism (as well-defined above), but may HELP (being very level/stage related).]

** (4) 'Learning' is not only considered ubiquitous, but very much always of the same nature. This is preposterous, as some psychologists have recognized, but they have been unable to come up with a clear persuasive basis for that outlook. If people in the field believe in qualitatively different levels (for some: stages) in child development (ontogeny) -- which ALL WITH ANY SENSE CAN FIND AND SEE -- then, obviously the qualitative nature of what now comes under 'learning' would also qualitatively change.

** (5) Psychology has NEVER had a respect for, or a reasonable set of OBSERVATIONS. They basically skipped this basic step (basic in ANY science) and went into their LABS (it is not hard to wonder why and conclude how this was motivated and that this is NOT correct). A meaningful, rather large SET of good verifiable observations should precede MOST experiments, considering their subject matter. I have been writing here about: agreed upon (aka verifiable) observations, often it is called inter-observer reliability, and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

[ Please note that I have provided some kind or example, or an indication of PROOF, for all the 5 points above ((1)-(5)). ]

---------

Hereon especially for Orlando M Lourenço , himself (in particular) : I find you pig-headed, unfair and insulting; how few of the 700 pages of my writing (all related; all here on RG) have you read???? Come on; you keep criticizing me for the same thing(s) over and over, without trying to find and see and read any details -- this is what your behavior seems to distinctly show.

It is also damned insulting to continue to consider me a "mental case". Maybe you are, to the extent that you always and rather fully defend the status quo and with just what you choose to look into -- inadequate as a scientist, and certainly for one who wants to both insult another (me) and defend the status quo. Operating inadequately on old learning or selective learning and never fairly or reasonably looking "into things". You are Trump-ian: you believe what you want, now, on any individually (subjectively) chosen basis. If you consider that a "mental case", then RATHER take a good look at yourself, than towards me. I find you unacceptable. Read me at length or please do not address me. I have had it with you. To me, you are like a broken record of static, i.e. interference and, in addition, you are at least deceptive and an enemy of real science, at worst. I think I have seen enough to see you as both unfair and deceptive (all-knowing, when NOT) _AND_ an enemy of science (not just of progress, but of science itself) as that is clearly the result.

Learn to address ME (and my concepts, perspective, and approach) OR **** the **** UP. This thread is NOT for such as you, defending the status quo, anyway; so your post is inappropriate. You must specify clear likely-effective improvements for psychology -- there is no evidence you have that ability.