Psychology is essentially trying to muscle itself in on the territory of 'hard' (numerical) science, despite the fact that by its nature it lends itself very little to the scientific method. The fact is that there are a large number of clinical therapists doing poor or little statistical analysis, riding on the fact that statistical analysis is done in the profession to prove that it's a 'hard' science. They throw around words like "empirically-derived model" without having much understanding of what an empirically-derived model really is.
Why are they trying so hard to pretend it's a kind of science it isn't? Because of what you said in your previous post: science has replaced the Church. In the eyes of many laypeople, claiming that one is doing numerical science makes you infallible, much in the way that in centuries past, members of the clergy were seen as infallible. They can say whatever the hell they want, or base it on a minute sample size, and call it science, and that lends the stamp of truth to it in the public's eyes. Basically, some of these people have to justify why they get $5 million grants to prove that people don't like looking at pictures of dirty toilets, and some of them have become extensively self-righteous.
I'll add to that:
Date: 2004-10-04 10:29 pm (UTC)Why are they trying so hard to pretend it's a kind of science it isn't? Because of what you said in your previous post: science has replaced the Church. In the eyes of many laypeople, claiming that one is doing numerical science makes you infallible, much in the way that in centuries past, members of the clergy were seen as infallible. They can say whatever the hell they want, or base it on a minute sample size, and call it science, and that lends the stamp of truth to it in the public's eyes. Basically, some of these people have to justify why they get $5 million grants to prove that people don't like looking at pictures of dirty toilets, and some of them have become extensively self-righteous.