'Organismic' is a word that should be used WAY more often (as is 'PATTERNS'). ( I am writing for psychology here.) [ One could either say a LOT more here to make it clearer, but the words (would-be terms) give one sufficient guidance. ]
If psychology cannot do BOTH (and more, read on), it will never ever be a science (main sign of something that is NOT science : P
A consensus among persons of a NOT-science "community" (a "consensus" which is actually a very crude, superficial, vague set of "agreements") means NOTHING to me. I have written over 1000 pages in Articles, papers, and essays on the details of my perspective and approach; and ALL of these are available on RG . Psychology is a largely a pretend science, worse than a pseudo-science -- because they hide the facts that their views and approaches have mere beliefs as their bases.
Debates that are had are superficial and facile AND continuing "questions" and "questioning" largely about unreasonable approaches (and thus, the "questions" are unanswerable, and they must continue to hack away at them). YET these are simply, in effect, the "bread and butter" of psych. professors (and of the students they allow to survive) (because this "questioning is inherently un-endable). . Reminds me more of religion, than science. In short: most psychology is just claim, claim,. and more claims.
The outlook of psychology ,in general, is that the researchers are getting many of the pieces/parts of "the" [full set of ] "evidence" about behavior AND (as is true of much Western "thought" (a curse)), they believe our own minds (and Memories) will be able to bring all of it together -- ANOTHER MYTH. Very strong arguments against "it all coming together" can be made.
- Badges
- Science topic