IMO, this should be required reading in all science courses.
If you disagree, please give your reasons. Opinions from Psychologists especially welcome!
I am no psychologist, but that is not relevant.
This guy clearly has a thing about psychology.
The problem as I see it is the all or nothing approach. If some aspects of a fields activities do not meet his standards then none of the activities therein can be hailed as scientific.
Science relies on empiricism. That is that robustly constructed experiments can reproducibly confirm findings in a given set of circumstances. In lab based sciences, as one can control counfounders easily, this is fairly straightforward. In human science, this is still an evolving field, the sources of bias mean that that which was accepted as proved 30 years ago, now needs revisiting. Given the purist approach being advocated this means that virtually all human pharmacology studies are non scientific!
In human studies we propose hypotheses; pilot studies are undertaken to determine the effect size; prospective DBRCTS of an adequate size are then constructed and where at least two such independently completed studies confirm the hypothesised effect, this is taken as proof. In constructing such studies, the population inclusion and exclusion criteria must be explicit, the size of the population screened documented and reported, the dropout and loss of followup rates identified, all procedures and tests undertaken in a veriafiable manner, all adverse events recorded, all primary and secondary endpoint evnets reported. The statistical methodology must be stated apriori, no post hoc analysis is permitted other than for hypothesis generation. No analysis of secondary enpoints permitted unless the primary endpoint is met.
After all the above peer reviewers must confirm that all appears to have been done as required above and that there is no evidence of fraud. Finally before practice changes significantly the papers are re-reviewed (not just the abstracts) by guideline committees who must satisfy themselves that the studies meet the JADAD criteria 4/5 and are consistent with the evidence base already available.
Yet this area is under scrutiny because it is recognised that the influence of those paying for the studies (pharma) and the bias of those constructing the studies, means that endpoints and study populations are selected to give the best possible chance of a positive finding - this is seen in some circumstances to give non generalisable findings, which are then put into practice not in accordance with the actual findings but with the inferences drawn during summarising the findings by biased authors.
What is my point? Despite his protestations - human science is an evolving subject, some may use this fact to try to claim that their practice is evidence based, when this is patently not the case, but for most it just means that we are endeavoring to move toward a position of more robust evidence, rather than any assertion that this has been achieved. The ART of medicine remains alive, some would say unfortunately.
The parts dealing with the philosophy of science are very good. The sections dealing with psychology are appallingly bad.Originally Posted by Jules
Yes, and it really detracts from his credibility as an author.
I've studied 2 undergraduate courses: chemistry and psychology. One, and only one, of them taught anything about the use of the scientific process, experimentation, engaging with theory, operationalizing variables, using experimental and null hypotheses, statistics and inference, control groups, engaging critically with previous theory and your own experimental results. And guess what? It wasn't the 'hard science' of chemistry.
Lutus seems to be confusing psychology with psychotherapies (again). His use of 'facilitated communication' and 'recovered memory therapy' make this obvious. When the case of Rom Houben (see: http://www.ukskeptics.com/houben.php) hit the news last year I searched the psychology literature to see whether it had been investigated scientifically by psychologists. It had, and the results were overwhelmingly negative - i.e. psychologists oppose the use of FC because it doesn't work. Likewise with the psychotherapy of 'recovered memory'; it was psychologists, particularly Elizabeth Loftus, who spoke out against it.
Lutus argues for a rigorous, scientific approach to issues particularly with regard to 'objective evidence' yet goes on to support his argument with non-evidence based anecdotes about 'psychology' which looks like nothing more than a personal opinion (based on personal experience?)*
When it comes to critical thinking in presenting arguments, one of the must have key features is that the author's biases are set aside (which often requires a self-reflexive, conscious effort). This clearly isn't occurring with Lutus's arguments.
So sorry Jules, I would not consider this author to be 'required reading' unless you're teaching an example of personal bias tainting an otherwise good article.
* I remember reading a website/blog called 'Cholesterol skeptics' where the bloke behind it was producing all sorts of arguments against the role of cholesterol in heart disease. It was all bogus and bad science, etc. Amazingly, it turned out that this 'cholesterol skeptic' had previously been diagnosed with high cholesterol...
.
Does this guy know what psychology does these days? Has he not been to see them at work? My wife did a psychology course a few years ago as part of an evening degree programme and I was astonished at the work they do these days. Gone are the ponderings of Yung and co. and in are the new brain scanners and the study of people with brain damage, Our knowledge of how the brain works is proceeding in leaps and bounds with these study techniques - by psychologists who are doing real, reproducible experiments. We should not have a problem with this sort of work.
Agreed. In this article, at least, he doesn't seem to make a distinction between clinical psychology and other branches. In another article "Is Psychology a Science?" he does make it clear what he is referring to:
Since its first appearance in 2003, this article has become required reading in a number of college-level psychology courses. Because this article is directed toward educated nonspecialist readers considering psychological treatment, students of psychology are cautioned that the terms "psychology" and "clinical psychology" are used interchangeably.
Last edited by Jules; 9th November 2010 at 07:43 AM.
No, and in another other article (The Myth of Mental Illness), Lutus says:
We're witnessing a fundamental change — a sweeping reëvaluation of psychology's content, interpretation and methods. Until recently clinical psychologists have attempted to diagnose and treat what are called "mental illnesses"29, which by definition are behaviors that originate in psychological abnormalities or "mental states", and are therefore addressable using psychological methods. But in recent decades, strong evidence has begun to suggest that what we call mental illnesses are actually symptoms of physical illnesses, and any meaningful diagnoses and treatments will require an understanding of the physical conditions that produce those symptoms.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks