The Myth of Science Part 1

[r0ckyreed]

Wow. I was thinking about this series before he posted it lol! This is awesome! I have just graduated with a psychology degree and I am going into graduate college to pursue a Master of Science in Mental Heath Counseling.

 

Here is the "objection" I wrote on YouTube (if you already read it, please skip the section):

 

—————-

 

One of the points in my science class was that we never use the word “prove.” Science does not prove anything. It tests hypotheses and verifies if they are reliably verified over time. I would avoid using the word the science proves evolution because evolution is a theory, not a law. I agree with many points in that it is completely relative, but just know that science does not prove things it merely tests hypotheses to see if they hold up. I think in your next episode, it would be cool to see you distinguish between a theory and law. In my own contemplation, I see that laws are also relative. But in sciences defense, a scientist or at least a good scientist avoids absolute words like “proof” “always” “never” “proven” etc. 

 

By the way, I recommend you look into Matt Dillahunty on Youtube. I think a discussion between you and him would be awesome! I have really wanted you to talk with him on his show “The Atheist Experience” for quite some time. I think it would be a powerful talk.

 

Please watch the video above!  He is trying to respond to the assertion that "Science is his God."

——————

 

In my experience, science is highly relativistic. Even mental health disorders in the DSM are mental maps that we construct and verify with other mental health professionals, cultural differences, etc. 

 

Science is helpful in this case because science does research to help clinicians to verify the best treatment outcome for their clients.

 

There are so many research designs used in science such as between-subjects and within-subjects design, small-n design, pre-test/post-test, factorial designs, quasi-experiments, and there are different ways to sample.  

Even though, I agree the science will never discover truths about Consciousness, I believe that science is highly beneficial to discovering better ways to flourish and navigate the truths within the contents of Consciousness.

For example:  Assessments are vital in counseling and help us measure where the client is at intellectually, mentally, emotionally, etc.  It helps us formulate a diagnosis.  There are many limitations to assessments and diagnoses, but science helps us investigate the validity of certain assessments, procedures, diagnoses, etc.

Our current way of doing science has been highly beneficial to research in a variety of disciplines.  It is the falsifiability of the hypotheses that allows scientists to perform tests and studies that demonstrate a certain hypotheses to be false.  If the hypotheses withstand scrutiny, they become theories.  It is this reliability of measurements, investigating, falsification, etc. that helps mental professionals collaborate together with the latest scientific finds to best help our clients.  We use the findings of scientific research to provide psychoeducation to clients to help them navigate through their life, find meaning, and overcome obstacles.

 

Positive psychology is a very important scientific discipline that does not receive as much attention.

 Here are some of the problems that I have seen in science:

Scientists have this distinction between the hard sciences and the soft sciences. (Biology, chemistry, etc. are hard scientists, whereas psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, etc. are considered soft sciences).  People in the hard sciences, I have noticed, tend to discard soft sciences as not real sciences because they are so subjective.  Psychology has been criticized by hard sciences as not being scientific, and it has made it more difficult for this field to grow.

 It is funny how the sciences that view humans as parts are seen as more scientific than rather than the sciences that focus on people as whole beings.  

Positive psychology is a branch out of psychology that came to being because of the negative bias that psychology was in.  Martin Seligman, the founder, wanted to investigate the question of "What are people doing well instead of what are people doing wrong?"  "What is self-actualization?  How do people become self-actualized?  What are the qualities of self-actualized people, etc.?"

 

Science is such a broad and vague enterprise, but our culture suffers from materialism.  Science to me is anything that intends to investigate reality.  This means that witchcraft, psychonauts, shamans, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, chemists, meditation, religion, contemplation, etc. are all facets of science.  

The principle of science itself has been good for exploration, but the paradigms that culture places onto reality and processes in science inhibit exploration.  Science  researches psychedelics, but the paradigm they interpret and research from is limited.  

Another major problem that we see in the field of psychology is that there are not many studies being replicated.  Replication is a crucial part of science, but I remember my psychology teacher saying that one of the reasons why we have this problem is because the Journal companies in which research is published typically do not care as much about replication studies.  I think the word "care" is used a bit misleadingly, but the fact is that scientists' reputations are also a thing to consider.  A scientist wants their study published by one of the best Journals out there.  Replication studies are not viewed as "important" reputation and credential builders.  Scientific studies that make huge discovers warrant recognition, fundings, etc.  I think funding plays a huge part in science.  The Universities are funded to carry out certain investigations.  The problems with replication is that scientists do not usually ever fully try to replicate other studies, rather they replicate them and then add their own interpretations and insights.  

Not to mention, there are cases where scientists have plagiarized and fabricated data to get more money.  There are many ethical dilemmas that are tied to the ego.  For instance, consider the case of a scientist who is having pressure to produce a valid experiment (sometimes, experiments fail and their hypotheses are null).  Scientists do not get paid for null hypotheses/results as I understand it (Don't quote me on that).  But for the scientist who has their job on the line or their credentials are on the line, what do you think they are going to do?  What happens if a scientist has invested years into a research project that all of a sudden fails?  Some scientists have fabricated data to make the data appear as if it is significant rather than null.  Just think about this, if replication is a huge problem in science that we are seeing, how do we catch people from fabricating data if we are not replicating studies?  

So yeah there are many positives to science, but the way in which the ego coopts it for its own gain and worldview is very tragic.  I intend to keep learning more about science so that I can use good science with future clients of mine and become the most effective mental health counselor that I can be!

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by r0ckyreed

[r0ckyreed]

"Until someone demonstrates a method better than science, it is the best we got." -- Matt Dillahunty

Edited October 25, 2020 by r0ckyreed