Which Doesn't Belong?
Posted by: tony on 01/02/2006 09:25 PM
Updated by: tony on 01/02/2006 10:56 PM
|
Expires: 02/02/2006 12:00 AM
|
 A. Biology
B. Psychology
C. Chemistry
D. Physics
If you picked "B", you are absolutely right!
Todd at Catholic Sensibility have been having a discussion regarding Hard Science .v Soft Science. In an entry called A Bit of Sociology, Todd stated:
Vatican II called for training seminarians in psychology and sociology, but somehow neglected to mention updating the already-ordained in these disciplines.
In a comment I replied:
So they are to be trained in psychology which states that homosexuality is a perfectly normal manifestation of mature sexuality?
These soft sciences like psychology and sociology have been co-opted by the political left, and in my opinion can't be trusted.
Todd, as I've been reading him, followed true to form. He refused to engage me in the comments box, he posted a new blog entry entitled Hard Science v. Soft Science. (I understand that this is Todd's blog, but I find it slightly unfair, that he posts his opinions on the front page, quoting me, and relegates my responses to the "classified ads". But I have a blog and I can play.) I am not a moron, like many of our more "progressive" friends like to paint us. I have been to college, I majored in math and science, and I understand what the scientific method entails. Todd states:
Regarding the "soft" sciences, Tony suggests, "Because the results are not verifiable, and are basically people's opinions without hard data, they are susceptable to be spun any way that people want them to."
Let me clue you in: "hard" scientists do the same. Lots of people cannot verify results to an absolute degree of satisfaction: theoretical physicists, evolutionary biologists, among others. Two scientists can have the same package of data, hard facts, if you will, and arrive at two different conclusions.
Sure, if one or more of the "scientists" are pursuing political agenda driven "research" (note the sneer quotes). Let's take a look at an article on the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality entitled Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders.
Well, no kidding.
Dr. Cummings said he has had a career-long commitment to promoting diversity. Therefore has been dismayed to see activists exploit the stature of the parent body to further their own social aims -- pushing the APA to take positions in areas where they have no conclusive evidence.
When APA does conduct research, Dr. Cummings said, they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."
Hmmm... Does that sound like science to you? It doesn't to me. You are supposed to take the research wherever the data leads you. If you're not allowed to do certain research because it might "upset the apple cart", that that isn't science. If the research can't stand up to peer review, then it can't. But to dismiss whole branches of research because it's not "politically correct" just... well... boggles.
When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."
This is not 21st century science. This is reminiscent of what happened to Gallileo in the middle ages at the hands of the Catholic Church.
Regarding treatment for unwanted homosexuality, the American Psychological Association has come very close to ratifying a statement which would declare therapy to modify sexual orientation "unethical." But "why does free choice go only one way?" Dr. Cummings asks.
So what happens to someone suffering from SSA (same sex attraction) who wants help with his problem? Odds are very good he won't find someone willing to help him, and if he does, the APA wants to shut that door and make sure anyone who tries to help him is hit with an "ethics violation". Helping him would mean that homosexuality was a "problem" and not a "natural manifestation of healthy sexuality" and we can't have that. Fabulous.
And the coup de grace:
"When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise," he explained. If psychology speaks out on every social issue, "very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization--just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting."
Yup. This is what's happened to the "science" of psychology. It's been reduced to a bunch of liberals screeching when their sacred cow is gored.
(H/T to Conde at Custos Fidei for the link to the article.)
|
