First, evil is simply a cause of suffering. Hence, natural evil and moral evil.

Let's go on to discuss moral evil because there's an interesting paradox with regard to it.

A person's dealings with others is tripartite in nature:

1. Intention
2. Action (cause)
3. Consequence (effect)

Take a look at the following:

Scenario 1
1. Intention (John wants to hurt Smith)
2. Action (John sticks a knife in Smith's neck)
3. Consequence (Smith dead on the floor)

All 3 components are bad/evil. Verdict: John is evil/bad

Scenario 2
1. Intention (John wants to hurt Smith)
2. Action (John befriends Smith, wins Smith's trust)
3. Consequence (Smith is betrayed by John at a critical moment, ruining Smith's life)

Only 2 components are bad (1 & 3). Friendship is good (2). There's one more immoral deed here viz. Smith is being deceived. Verdict: John is evil/bad.

The paradox: A person whose intentions, actions, consequences of those actions are all bad is far far better than another person whose intentions are bad, actions are good, and consequences of those actions are bad - no pulling the wool over the eyes in the former.

This odd state of affairs arises because it's either impossible or very rare for anyone to know the intentions of another person and actions/deeds are morally ambiguous (can be good/bad) depending on what the aims are.

Resolution of the paradox:

1. Ignore intentions: can't be known or really tough to get wind of

2. Ignore actions: morally ambiguous

Thus,

3. Focus on consequences

Hey presto!, we have utilitarianism or one of its variations.

Why does this happen? Overt evil (scenario 1) has a short lifespan - once detected, they're immediately snuffed out. Thus, for evil to survive it must disguise itself as good actions, the classic wolf in sheep's clothing - covert evil (scenario 2) has no expiry date.

You often have interesting and useful things to say on the subjects we talk about on this forum. On the other hand, the only reasonable way to deal with your opinions on this subject is not to participate in the discussion — T Clark

@tim wood

I won't object to that. Different strokes for different folks. Who knows, there must be a psychologist out there, either a forum member or not, who's mining forum threads like this one and others for information they could use. How do I think? How do you think? How do other members think? Valuable data as far as I can tell. As to what conclusions they draw, I'm uncertain but one thing's for sure, there's just too much disagreement insofar as this thread is concerned for any pattern in our thinking to be discernible. No pattern, no human nature, no psychology. :lol:

Alive -> Dying -> Dead

Socrates didn't die when he was alive. Check.

Socrates didn't die when he was died. Check.

Socrates died when he was dying. Check.

All good. No paradox. Take that Sextus Empiricus. :lol:

I like the question very much, merci beaucoup!

Depression & individualism, if thought to be causally related, is an oxymoron. Individualism, as I understand it, is to assert one's independence as it were from social relations but depression, if the literature on it is anywhere close to the truth, has everything to do with social relations, their absence or paucity thereof. Fierce individualism and depression make odd bedfellows.

first marriages — TiredThinker

First & marriage.

:chin:

First: Important ordinal number for any person. Anxiety, dread, uncertainty, excitement, optimism

Marriage: It used to mean something once. Why else is it held in such high regard, why does it command so much respect? Unfortunately or not, it's now outmoded, unsuitable or even outright deadly in the current social climate. It has lost its luster and charm. It no longer means anything.

First Marriage: Take a chance. success or sucks-cess.

@schopenhauer1 As I've already mentioned this to you before, you're like md and most others do completely ignoring the dynamic (video) quality of reality and opting to look at it as a static (photograph) frame. Indeed what you say can't be denied - higher cognitive abilities lead to amplification/aggravation of suffering as self-awareness, an aspect of such abilities, adds another layer to the experience of agony. An analogy seems to be in order. A car gets in an accident and is now totalled but now you're told it's your car. The damage to the car is compounded by the sense of personal loss (suffering literally doubled). I think the well known phrase "adding insult to injury" is perfect for the occasion. All this is not new to you or anyone so I might've stated the obvious.

Anyway, coming back to the dynamic vs static distinction I referred to, the suffering multiplied in humans (cognitively "superior") essentially becomes the impetus for a call to change, the hope being a change for the better. This change we desire originates in the higher cognitive centers which is also the the very means by which the change we desire can be achieved. All this - plan + implement plan - takes time (I spent an entire hour in a f**king traffic jam :grimace: :angry: ) but what needs to be noted is the dynamic quality of reality as it were - it's a process not a state. Once we become cognizant of this simple fact, we realize that, yes, it's bad but it doesn't have to stay that way. The winds of change have blown, are blowing, and will blow.

Don’t conflate. — khaled

Look who's talking.

I'm done here Khaled. Frankly speaking, I'm glad that you don't buy into my arguments. You're a diehard utilitarian and that's far better than being morally bankrupt.

@Yohan @Isaac @tim wood

Here's my personal take on psychology for your consideration.

Psychology is the study of mind and behavior according to Wikipedia and that's, to my reckoning, answering two important questions:

1. How do people think/behave? Seeking patterns in thoughts and deeds much like how physicists extract the so-called laws of nature from observation. Answering this question will lead to laws of thinking/acting. Just as the laws of nature help us plan and manipulate our environment, the laws of thinking/acting too will prove to be of utmost value in "manipulating" people :down: & :up: but more :down: than :up: I suppose.


2. Why people think/act the way they do? This level of explanation is missing in physics (or is it?). Newton after developing his theory of gravity famously declared, hypotheses non fingo when asked, I'm guessing, why there's gravity? Albert Einstein, 300 years later, provided one explanation for gravity - mass causing spatial curvature.

However, as you would've already noticed, this leads to an infinite regress of explanations. Why does mass cause space to curve?, is the next thing that requires an explanation, so on and so forth. Thus, the extreme but palpable reluctance among physicists to provide explanations for the laws of nature.

Coming to psychology, let's suppose a theory X exists that explains,why people think/act the way they do? Not only have the laws of thinking/acting been discovered and enumerated in detail, now we also know why there are such laws at all. Is theory X possible/impossible? Is this question even the right one to ask? Even if it were possible, the specter of infinite regress looms over our heads - theory X explains the laws of thinking/acting asserting, say, that it's because of, if you'll permit me to simplify for the sake of convenience, sexual issues (Freud) but this itself needs further explanation, right? Why do sexual issues cause the laws of thinking/acting to be as they are?

Psychology is doomed if it devotes any amount of time and energy trying to answer question 2. why people think/act the way do? This, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the question psychology wants answered and thus marks the point it diverges from physics (note I'm using physics as the best representative for science). In this sense psychology isn't science - it brushes aside the infinite regress of explanations problem that all scientists know all too well to get sucked into.

Another thing is...

Psychology, from what I've gathered, is the study of human nature. What are humans like (the laws of thinking/acting)? Why are they like that (the theory that attempts to explain the laws of thinking/acting)? Setting aside the fact that controversy surrounding human nature - does it even exist? - psychologists can, at the very least, say that almost all/most people think/act in a certain way in a specified situation. This, as you know, is a statistical claim and this particular strain of knowledge is notorious for its uncertainty - even if 90% of Indians are Hindus, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Indian you met at a friend's house-warming party is a Hindu. It's likely, yes, but not certain and therein lies the rub.

Science is certain, ignoring the problem of induction, about the laws of nature - they're inviolable and if they're broken, it's back to the drawing board.

Statistical claims like those found in psychology tolerate errors in prediction - if 90% of people would donate to charity and I find out you don't, it isn't an issue at all because you could be one of the 10%. Return now to the theory X I talked about earlier - it has to explain both why 90% donate to charity and why 10% don't. Immediately we come to the realization that X has to be compatible with both a random person Y donating to charity and also refusing to do that. If so, Y's thoughts/actions have no effect on theory X - whatever Y does, the theory X remains unmolested which, in Popper's universe, means theory X is unfalsifiable and ergo, is unscientific for that reason. Another way to understand this Gordian knot in psychology is that exceptions (the 10% who don't donate to charity) are exceptions precisely because the theory that explains the majority behavior (90% who donate to charity) can't explain them.

That's as far as I could get with the little that I know.

Even if the theory is based on the myth, which I doubt, I don't see how that makes it a myth nor reliant on the myth. I don't get you at all.
The Oedipus complex and the Oedipus Myth describe the same thing, that's all. The myth doesn't explain the theory, it describes it. (Although technically description is a preliminary step in the explanation process) — Yohan

I'm not saying the Oedipus myth explains the Oedipus complex. I'm saying it is the Oedipus complex and thus serves as the explanation for so-called psychological issues people have. In other words, the Oedipus myth can be used in and of itself to conduct a Freudian analysis if that's what it's called without having to read even a single word of what Freud wrote about it. Freud's work is in that sense superfluous and redundant. In other words Freud's theory is simply the Oedipus myth retold.

The myth of Sisyphus is a metaphor.
The myth explains why human life is futile. It doesn't just fit a description, it explains the reason.
Camus explanation of WHY human life is futile is analogous with the explanation of the futility of Sisyphus' predicament. — Yohan

So, now you're changing tack. The "metaphor" explains the human condition. Do you get a kick out of this? I ask because you really aren't making any sense here.

Calling a non sequitor a non sequitor is making a case. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from any of your premises — khaled

It appears we're merely talking past each other. I'm sorry but I don't have the energy nor the patience to keep repeating what is at heart a very simple idea, Protagoras' counterdilemma vis-à-vis the moral dilemmas in consequentialism (the trolley problem) and in Kantian deontology (murderer at the door problem).

However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem.
— TheMadFool

Does not lead to.

people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality.
— TheMadFool — khaled

You've lost the plot Khaled.

No one asked how you feel. — khaled

I've given due respect to how you feel/think and I was under the impression that this would be reciprocated. I was wrong and here you are debating morality. Something's off Khaled - you're in dire need of some soul-searching.

What was asked is whether or not you think it’s morally permissible to choose 2 in that situation (just donating to charity). So, do you? Give a straight answer so I know if this conversation is worth continuing. — khaled

I've been honest with my answers but it's obvious that you're set in your ways. See below:

clearly killing 10 is better than killing 100. — khaled

You're blinded by mathematics, under its spell as it were. That's my explanation for why you would hold such a preposterous idea.

Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted — Albert Einstein

No. That would be like you trying to solve a math problem, failing to do so, and then concluding: “So the answer must be as negative as it is positive, so it’s 0” — khaled

Self-critique is a good thing I hear. Carry on Khaled.

Myths are illustrative, yeah. I don't agree Freud would think myths are more than that. But I'll let it go. — Yohan

I deeply appreciate your kind gesture to "...let it go..." but Freud's theory is, as I've now repeated for the umpteenth time, based off of Oedipus and his rather, to put it mildly "unconventional" relationship with his mother. To state the obvious, Oedipus is the index case of the so-called Oedipus complex.

Camus' Sisyphus on the other hand is merely an analogy employed to illustrate the futile nature of human existence.

Do you see the difference now?

Sorry to keep harping on this but how about Albert Camus and the myth of Sisyphus? Will you call out philosophy as being a mythology? — Yohan

Camus' myth of sisyphis is an illustration. Freud's Oedipus complex is an explantion.

I think it’s the clearest most unequivocal sign of a non sequitor. — khaled

You have accused me but you haven't made your case yet.

False. The point of the trolley problem is that we can’t tell which is better. — khaled

In other words, they're equally good or we could drop the quantification ("equally") and simply say they're both good and only that, no better, no worse.

Clearly morality is about better/worse not just good/bad — khaled

You're contradicting yourself Khaled.

1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity.
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity. — khaled

Ah so it’s just a preference. In terms of morality you truly think picking 2 as opposed to 1 is perfectly ok? — khaled

I was upfront about how I felt. Choose 1 rather than 2 but this isn't a dilemma unlike the one below,

1- Kill 10 innocent people.
2- Kill 100 innocent people. — khaled

but as you already know or should know you've only increased the number of people without affecting the essence of the moral dilemma encapsulated by the trolley problem. I don't need to provide a separate solution for it is what I mean.

proto-morals — jorndoe

Rat — jorndoe

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have a new (role) model, the humble rat (Rattus rattus) who until Dec 2011 were treated as vermin, to be exterminated en masse. My my, how the times have changed. It was only yesterday that people minted money by selling rat poison and now, this study shows us a side that we never in our wildest dreams thought rodents had. Our relationship with animals needs a major overhaul but that would've been true even if rats and other animals are utterly devoid of empathy, right?

Till recently I thought morality was what came out when you mix empathy and reason, when heart and mind partner up and that it had to wait until reason grew up so to speak. However, without some proto-morality already in play we would've never gotten to the point where we could do that.

P. S. What about the so-called replication crisis in psychology.

Really? A quick thought experiment. Say someone had these two choices in front of them:

1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity.
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity.

Both are good clearly, so is one then justified in picking option 2?

My point is precisely that the quote above is not accurate. It does matter much, even if both options are good. — khaled

Good point Khaled. I appreciate you bringing this up. We're now in the domain of Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus.

Let's examine the utilitarian trolley problem in more detail. From Bentham's and Mill's point of view, you should pull the lever just as I suspect you believe the choice 1 in your thought experiment is the right one. However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. I take that as the clearest, most unequivocal sign that people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. In other words, there's no better/worse in the moral dimension; all that counts is being good and in that respect all deeds are either good/bad not better/worse as you seem to be implying.

That said, I'd very much prefer it if you do save my life from a car crash and also donate 100 dollars to charity.

You do catch my drift right? If the issue were about a better (moral) deal, there would be no dilemma in the first place.

Well if I understood anything at all about postmodernism then this joke should be a apt.

One day in a village somewhere the local judge invited a friend over to one of his hearings. Two people involved in a dispute turned up. One began to relate his side of the story and when he'd finished the judge calmy declared, "you're right!" It was now the second person's turn and he too gave his version of the dispute. When he was done, the judge, again without batting an eyelid, announced, "you're right!" The judge's friend was utterly bewildered by all this and said, "this is utter nonsense! they can't both be right." The judge simply looked at his friend and replied, "you're also right!" :chin: :lol:

No. It's a short read, a few paragraphs, although not-so-easy. And not-so-easy to sum up in a sentence. Which, after some thought, I will not attempt. One aspect, one point Kant makes, is that at the time of answering, the location of the prospective victim is not known. The lie to save the victim, then, could instead kill him! — tim wood

The murderer at the door gedanken experiment wouldn't make sense if you don't know where your friend is. A lie is lie only if you know the truth and attempt to conceal it.

Sure. And when they're both bad which should I do? Dilemma! When they're both good which would I do? Dilemma! — khaled

If they're both good, it doesn't matter which one you choose. That's the point. Remember the objective here - to be good!

In the original formulation of moral problems both choices are presented as bad and that's what dilemmas are at their core. That's why we hesitate, we're reluctant, to make a decision. Once Protagoras has finished with such dilemmas by offering the corresponding counterdilemma, we experience an aha moment! Both choices are bad but if the problem is wholly based on that, Protagoras shows us that both can be treated as good too. Voila tout! The problem disappears.

It all depends on perspective - so many forum members have mentioned this that I feel I'm wasting my time preaching to choir - and here's something that might make you grasp the gist of my argument :point: Is The Glass Half Empty Or Half Full?

I feel like I'm stuck in a time loop. Oh well, let's go over this once more. It won't hurt to do so I suppose. Once omnipotence is assumed, nothing is impossible. So, God can commit suicide, he must've already but God isn't dead.

That may be because you are an adventurous philosopher, a risk taking metaphysician.... :-) Better get it wrong once in a while than say nothing, or something amounting to nought. — Olivier5

There are some things one is better off without. Anyway I'll take that as a compliment.

Regarding boredom, if every situation eventually becomes a choice between enduring suffering or doing nothing, it would be repetitive and thus, as you said, boring. Becoming world-weary, another name for boredom, is inevitable. I suppose being capable of boredom is some kinda secret weapon we can deploy against reality - been there, done that, what's new? :yawn:

Cancer cells die along with with the body that gave it life. A suicide of sorts, which is a perfect analogy for the direction of the human species. — MondoR

Indeed! :up:

However, it can't be denied that cancer is one of the many ways to becoming immortal :point: The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks

First of all, my sincerest apologies. I got the wrong end of the stick.

The choices offered by Voltaire are:

1. Do something (endure some amount of suffering)

or

2. Do nothing

For Voltaire both are bad but he wants to know which of the two is worse?

The relevant concepts here are, as I pointed out, Lesser-Evilism and Necessary Evil. Voltaire finds himself between Scylla and Charybdis.

For my money, it boils down to some kind of calculus involving the degree of suffering involved. Reminds me of two aphorisms:

3. No pain, no gain [2 is worse]

and

4. The game is not worth the candle [1 is worse]

I suppose what all this means is we'll have to take a case-by-case approach to issues that boil down to a choice between 1 and 2.

@Wayfarer once, in another thread, commented "...least worst option..."

What you've written may provide a case that some psychology is bad science, but provides no evidence at all that psychology as a discipline is not a science. — T Clark

I guess you missed the point then. :smile:

I'm not happy, not happy at all that I had to do your homework for you.
— TheMadFool

Maybe an antidepressant would help? — Bitter Crank

:rofl: So, it's me and not them who's (mentally) ill? :lol:

Sitting there doing nothing does evoke boredom. — Olivier5

You forgot the other half of the story.

Definitely not boredom.
— TheMadFool

What then? — Olivier5

One of the choices discussed is "...simply sit there and do nothing." This is not ennui. The other choice is clearly not something any person in faer right mind would be bored by.

You aren't "using military tactics - liquidate high value targets." As Ying noted:

you're just ignorant about psychology as a discipline.
— Ying — T Clark

We'll see who's ignorant.

Metascience

Metascience involves the application of scientific methodology to study science itself. The field of metascience has revealed problems in psychological research. Some psychological research has suffered from bias,[254] problematic reproducibility,[255] and misuse of statistics.[256] These findings have led to calls for reform from within and from outside the scientific community.[257]

Confirmation bias

In 1959, statistician Theodore Sterling examined the results of psychological studies and discovered that 97% of them supported their initial hypotheses, implying possible publication bias.[258][259][260] Similarly, Fanelli (2010)[261] found that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as space science or geosciences. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases.

Replication

Further information: Replication crisis § In psychology

A replication crisis in psychology has emerged. Many notable findings in the field have not been replicated. Some researchers were even accused of publishing fraudulent results.[262][263][264] Systematic efforts, including efforts by the Reproducibility Project of the Center for Open Science, to assess the extent of the problem found that as many as two-thirds of highly publicized findings in psychology failed to be replicated.[265] Reproducibility has generally been stronger in cognitive psychology (in studies and journals) than social psychology[265] and subfields of differential psychology.[266][267] Other subfields of psychology have also been implicated in the replication crisis, including clinical psychology,[268][269] developmental psychology,[270][271][272] and a field closely related to psychology, educational research.[273][274][275][276]

Focus on the replication crisis has led to other renewed efforts in the discipline to re-test important findings.[277][278] In response to concerns about publication bias and data dredging (conducting a large number of statistical tests on a great many variables but restricting reporting to the results that were statistically significant), 295 psychology and medical journals have adopted result-blind peer review where studies are accepted not on the basis of their findings and after the studies are completed, but before the studies are conducted and upon the basis of the methodological rigor of their experimental designs and the theoretical justifications for their proposed statistical analysis before data collection or analysis is conducted.[279][280] In addition, large-scale collaborations among researchers working in multiple labs in different countries have taken place. The collaborators regularly make their data openly available for different researchers to assess.[281] Allen et al.[282] estimated that 61 percent of result-blind studies have yielded null results, in contrast to an estimated 5 to 20 percent in traditional research.

Misuse of statistics

Further information: Misuse of statistics and Misuse of p-values

Some critics view statistical hypothesis testing as misplaced. Psychologist and statistician Jacob Cohen wrote in 1994 that psychologists routinely confuse statistical significance with practical importance, enthusiastically reporting great certainty in unimportant facts.[283] Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on p-values.[284]

WEIRD bias

"WEIRD" redirects here. For other uses, see Weird.

See also: Cultural psychology, Indigenous psychology, Transnational psychology, and Cross-cultural psychology

In 2008, Arnett pointed out that most articles in American Psychological Association journals were about U.S. populations when U.S. citizens are only 5% of the world's population. He complained that psychologists had no basis for assuming psychological processes to be universal and generalizing research findings to the rest of the global population.[285] In 2010, Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan reported a bias in conducting psychology studies with participants from "WEIRD" ("Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic") societies.[286][287] Henrich et al. found that "96% of psychological samples come from countries with only 12% of the world’s population" (p. 63). The article gave examples of results that differ significantly between people from WEIRD and tribal cultures, including the Müller-Lyer illusion. Arnett (2008), Altmaier, and Hall (2008) and Morgan-Consoli et al. (2018) view the Western bias in research and theory as a serious problem considering psychologists are increasingly applying psychological principles developed in WEIRD regions in their research, clinical work, and consultation with populations around the world.[285][288][289] In 2018, Rad, Martingano, and Ginges showed that nearly a decade after Henrich et al.'s paper, over 80% of the samples used in studies published in the journal Psychological Science employed WEIRD samples. Moreover, their analysis showed that several studies did not fully disclose the origin of their samples; the authors offered a set of recommendations to editors and reviewers to reduce WEIRD bias.[290]

Unscientific mental health training

Some observers perceive a gap between scientific theory and its application—in particular, the application of unsupported or unsound clinical practices.[291] Critics say there has been an increase in the number of mental health training programs that do not instill scientific competence.[292] Practices such as "facilitated communication for infantile autism"; memory-recovery techniques including body work; and other therapies, such as rebirthing and reparenting, may be dubious or even dangerous, despite their popularity.[293] These practices, however, are outside the mainstream practices taught in clinical psychology doctoral programs. — Wikipedia

I'm not happy, not happy at all that I had to do your homework for you.

Name one geological, or ecological, or paleontological, or evolutionary biology theory that matches up to what you call a "scientific theory." — T Clark

A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. If any of the branches of knowledge you mention contain such theories, they are scientific. If not, these aren't sciences.

It's not a paradox. It is an observation of the human experience.

The advice is to lead a life of moderation.

Like cancer cells, human desires are unchecked, and are leading to the destruction of their environment that gives it life. If you need any support, just observe what is happening all over the world. Nero fiddles as Rome burns. Humans are what they are. Cancer cells. — MondoR

You don't know what a paradox is then. Nevertheless, I like your analogy, comparing humans to cancer cells, but you left it half-finished. Cancer kills but, as cruel fate would have it, it's also the secret to immortality.

I've thrown my lot in with those who say we can reach herd immunity with X% of the people vaccinated. That leaves an available Y% that don't have to get vaccinated if they don't want. Out of that Y% — James Riley

You're obsesssed with X and Y. :lol:

Fool, we've been over this, at least once.

Stop confusing yourself and go study some actual Buddhist doctrine instead of relying on popular pseudobuddhist soundbites.

In Early Buddhism, there are two types of desire: the bad one (tanha) and the good one (chanda). A person is actually suposed to cultivate the desire to make an end to suffering!
There is no catch-22 like some pop-Buddhists would have us believe.
— baker — baker

I did consider that possibility but I was just wondering if the Buddha could extricate himself from the paradox. He can. I'm much pleased.

Yes, lets stop beating around the bush. What does it mean for a theory to be scientific in light of the works of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Polanyi, Woolgar and Latour? I have no interest in discussing if a particular theory is scientific or not if the notion of "scientific theory" isn't both well informed and clearly defined. Kindergarten philosophy of science isn't philosophy of science. This is the reason why I didn't bring this topic up in the first place and why I only focussed on your claim that "psychology is simply mythology in modern form".

What does it mean for a theory to be scientific if we don't ignore most of the relevant literature? Not an easy answer, to be sure. — Ying

A scientific theory shouldn't be/can't be compatible with both the truth of a prediction and the falsehood of that prediction i.e. it should be falsifiable. A psychological theory would have to explain both the trends in thinking patterns and the exceptions in those patterns. In other words, a psychological theory would have to explain why most people like chocolate while some don't. This, as you can see, means psychological theories can't be falsified (the exception proves the rule is not gonna work).

Many inventions started out as science fiction. Eg, cordless phones, and video calls. If modern inventions sound like, look, and behave like science fiction, it's therefore science fiction?
How about astronomy. The planets are named after Roman Gods. Is astronomy therefore based, in part, on mythology? — Yohan

Naming something from mythology is not the same as relying on it produce an explanatory hypothesis.

I already mentioned completely different lines of inquiry which started with the fathers of the field in my initial post in this thread. If you keep on insisting that the entire field of psychology can be summed up in Freuds psychoanalysis then you're just ignorant about psychology as a discipline. Remember, you stated that "psychology is simply mythology in modern form." You weren't just talking about Freuds theories. I'm noting this again since it seems to me like you're trying to move the goalposts here. Very intellectually honest of you. :rofl: — Ying

:rofl: Honestly, honesty ain't the best policy! Take that Pembroke scholars!

Truth be told, my criticism is particular in being directed against Freud but I'm using military tactics - liquidate high value targets. Attacking Freud successfully as I think I've done leaves psychology leaderless. Psychology should collapse unless psychology is the mythical Hydra. :wink:

Right. Talking about what distinguishes a scientific theory from a non scientific theory (you know, demarcation crfiteria) is "beating around the bush". Whatever. :lol: — Ying

You've ignored my request. I'll take that as confirmation of there being no psychological theories that are scientific.

Example of a new form of logic. It's called Democratic logic. — charles ferraro

:clap: Wow! :up:

Emotions as voluntary? Well, it's like this: I can't choose whom I love but I can choose whom I marry.

I was responding to your claim that "psychology is simply mythology in modern form". The stuff I mentioned provided enough points to show that no, it isn't, and it never was. Only a very narrow reading of the entire field would give such an impression. Anyway, I take it that you're conceding this point since you didn't bother to respond to the issues I raised. — Ying

Truth be told, the idea that one finds best describes one's own ideas is a hint as to what one's own ideas are. Freud was under the impression that the mythology of Oedipus fit his theory of human psychology like a glove - that's why he settled on it, no? This, to me, is the clearest indication that something's wrong with Freud's theory - if it looks like a duck (mythology) and quacks like a duck (mythology), it must be a duck (mythology).

Note that I didn't say a word about if psychology as a whole is in line with your particular demarcation criteria though. Why? Because I don't think we see eye to eye on that topic. But an actual discussion on demarcation criteria would fall outside of the scope of this thread, since that would involve more than just psychology and it's importance. And no, I don't think the issue boils down to a simple "Kuhn vs. Popper" and/or a "Polanyi vs Feyerabend" discussion; the findings of Latour and Woolgar, as documented in their book "Laboratory Life" significantly muddy the waters when it comes to demarcation criteria (The science wars of the 90s are a good illustration of what I'm getting at). — Ying

You're beating around the bush. I'll make it easy for you: name one psychological theory that matches up to a scientific theory and we can begin to discuss it.

”Ultimately, your every desire - the desire for material things, relationships, career success, sexual gratification - is really the desire for the peace you experience for brief moments when you attain the object of your desire” - Stephan Bodian — Pax

Point! The issue seems to be about how the world is and how that usually works against you. You want something and then you realize the deck is stacked against you most of the time. The probability of getting what you want is close to zero. This simple truth is the seedbed of Gautama's warning that desire leads to suffering. Put simply, your desires aren't going to be fulfilled, the world is not designed for such a purpose. The truth is, if there's design to the world, it's to thwart all such attempts. What's the most reasonable course of action then?

Extinguish desire.

Unfortunately, a paradox results. To extinguish desire, you must desire to extinguish desire. Since where there's desire, trouble soon follows, you have to stop desiring to extinguish desire too. If so, extinguishing desire is impossible. Ergo, suffering is inevitable. Any attempt to escape invites further confinement.

The best comeback for the Buddha would be this,

To not desire to desire = to desire not to desire? Yes, precisely! — Siddhartha

The question that baffles me is: what can I call the concept of willingly choosing some degree of suffering (or uncomfortability). Because we are not satisfied by the boredom of absolute comfortability. — Pax

This seems related :point: Embodiment Is Burdensome.

The concept that comes closest to what you're saying is: Necessary Evil.

The conversation now slowly drifts towards Gottfried Leibniz's notion of Best Of All Possible Worlds, the intended target of Voltaire's mockery.

boredom — Pax

bored — Olivier5

What do you think "he referred to"? — tim wood

Definitely not boredom.

This is like basing your entire opinion regarding philosophy on just Parmenides or something. Both his contemporaries and his succesors where involved in entirely different projects.
Freuds work can be seen as being in line (as in: line of inquiry) with the project started by von Krafft-Ebbing, what with his focus on sexual psychopathology... Both William James and Wilhelm Wundt where active during the same period, and their lines of inquiry involved the first experimental psychological laboratories. Neither actually had anything to do with psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis might have been in vogue for a while, but this was later replaced by behaviorism as the dominant paradigm. There also is the line which eventually lead to gestalt psychology (Brentano> von Ehrenfels> Wertheimer> Koffka> Kohler...), and these boys didn't have anything to do with psychoanalysis either. But sure, mythology. Even though they mostly talk about phenomenological accounts of sensory perception. — Ying

I do feel the aspiration to make psychology a science was/is in good faith, authentic in every sense of the word. However, sometimes reality doesn't match expectations - there's many a slip between the cup and the lip as they say.

A few issues that thwart the psychologist's attempts to make psychology into a science:

1. The data is unreliable. People will lie and inconsistently at that, a spanner in the works. Need I say more?

2. The mind is under the influence of multiple ideas, some, probably most, mutually contradictory. The upshot: no clear-cut thinking patterns. Our minds are chaotic - one moment we're theists, the next we're atheists, and at other times, agnostic. There's no telling which is which.

3. If we do detect thought patterns, we'll need to come up with a hypothesis to explain them. However, unlike patterns in physics which are inviolable (laws), those in psychology are statistical i.e. all we might be able to say is most people think a certain way. What then about the exceptions, the oddball who doesn't quite fit in with the rest? In scientific circles this would be treated as a failure of a posited hypothesis but in psychology they'll be ignored or even tolerated.

Psychology isn't a science.