Crisis In The Family Courts

Is Psychology a Science?

Posted in Uncategorized by abatteredmother on February 7, 2009

RightsForMothers.com

February 5, 2009

Is Psychology a Science?

Filed under: CSPAS, Conferences, Corrupt bastards, Dr. Richard Gardner, Getting Screwed by the Whores of the Court, Guardian Ad Litem, Joseph Goldberg, Legal abuse, Ontario, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Psychologists, Whores of the court — justice4mothers @ 11:54 pm

A wonderful paper from arachnoid.com…considering the pixie dust being thrown about to entice people to come to the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome, this is worth a read (apologies to the good, ethical psychologists..I know there are a few).  Here is an excerpt:

At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.

A lobotomy being performed on this poor devil...

A lobotomy being performed…

Like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called “normal behavior.” But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder.

In the same way that everyone is a sinner in religion’s metaphysical playground, everyone is mentally ill in psychology’s long, dark hallway – no one is truly “normal.” This means everyone needs psychological treatment. This means psychologists and psychiatrists are guaranteed lifetime employment, although that must surely be a coincidence rather than a dark motive.

But this avoids a more basic problem with the concept of “normal behavior.” The problem with establishing such a standard, whether one does this directly as religion does, or indirectly as psychology does, is that the activity confronts, and attempts to contradict, something that really is a scientific theory – evolution. In evolution, through the mechanism of natural selection, organisms adapt to the conditions of their environment, and, because the environment keeps changing, there is no particular genotype that can remain viable in the long term.

The scientific evidence for evolution is very strong, and evolution’s message is that only flexible and adaptable organisms survive in a world of constant change. Reduced to everyday, individual terms, it means no single behavioral pattern can for all time be branded “correct” or “normal.” This is the core reason religion fails to provide for real human needs (which wasn’t its original purpose anyway), and this failing is shared by psychology – they both put forth a fixed behavioral model in a constantly changing world.

The present atmosphere among many psychologists and psychiatrists can only be described as panic. This panic is clearly shown in the rapid, seemingly purposeful destruction of the DSM, the field’s “bible,” as a legitimate diagnostic tool (because if everything is a mental illness, then nothing is). This panic arises in part from a slow realization that many conditions formerly thought to be mental conditions amenable to psychological treatment, turn out to be organic conditions treatable with drugs (or, like homosexuality, turn out to be conditions not appropriate to any kind of treatment). Further, many traditional clinical practices have been shown to be ineffectual and/or indistinguishable from ordinary experience or nothing at all.

To read this article, please visit the website.

A fellow blogger is on an internet listserver that deals with psychology and the law.  Here is her general observation about the psychologists that belong to this group:

It is interesting – they are so cerebral and use such rhetoric even in their emails. They propose their ideas to each other to see if the excuses sound plausible. They exchange bullshit studies all pretty much written by a small group of people. They also complain about any laws that constrain what they do and their ability to charge for it. They make flippant comments about testifying for a living…

********sigh*********

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: