7 ms·

1. Neuroscience is not psychology. 2. Electroshock “therapy” is not neuroscience.

rusk 5y ago
1. Yes it is, or at least was. It’s a branch of psychology that developed into a science its own right. Just as physics was once “natural philosophy”. Epistemologically however neuroscience does still fall under the umbrella term of psychology.
- luffapi 5y ago
  That’s like saying alchemy is science because chemistry developed from it. If it has no reproducibility, it’s not science it’s speculation.
  - rusk 5y ago
    No it’s not and this comparison is facetious. Nobody practices alchemy as a mainstream science in 2021. There are plenty of people doing astrology for instance but in a clinical setting? In funded university programs? Producing papers that can be openly challenged? I don’t think so. Again facetious.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      That’s not a meaningful metric. Plenty of people doing astrology in 2021. That doesn’t make it real.
caddemon 5y ago
ECT was certainly way over applied back in the day, but it's made a bit of a comeback in recent years for treating severe depression. In the sense that clinical trials are science, it's definitely science. It's true we don't really understand why it works, but you could say the same thing about a number of drugs for treating psychiatric disease, and I doubt you would say those are not science. Here is a FAQ about ECT from Hopkins: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/specialty_areas/brain_stimulation/ect/faq_ect.html https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/specialty_areas/b...
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
Can you provide a definition of psychology then please? I'm hesitant to try my skills at one that doesn't map somewhere to neuroscience.
- luffapi 5y ago
  It’s the study of the “mind” (not brain). It’s very basis is the study of a pseudo-religious phenomenon. Neuroscience is real science because it studies the brain not the artificial and archaic concept of the mind. There can be personal value in studying psychology. It’s just not science, it’s fictional.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dash2 5y ago
    How does this critique apply, e.g. to Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations? Or, if you want something more rigorous, to prospect theory and other decision theorists' attempts to build simple tractable models of decision-making?
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      > It’s the study of the “mind” (not brain). It’s very basis is the study of a pseudo-religious phenomenon So you don't believe in the existence of qualia? That's a pretty strong philosophical position.

rusk 5y ago

1. Yes it is, or at least was. It’s a branch of psychology that developed into a science its own right. Just as physics was once “natural philosophy”. Epistemologically however neuroscience does still fall under the umbrella term of psychology.

luffapi 5y ago
That’s like saying alchemy is science because chemistry developed from it. If it has no reproducibility, it’s not science it’s speculation.
- rusk 5y ago
  No it’s not and this comparison is facetious. Nobody practices alchemy as a mainstream science in 2021. There are plenty of people doing astrology for instance but in a clinical setting? In funded university programs? Producing papers that can be openly challenged? I don’t think so. Again facetious.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    That’s not a meaningful metric. Plenty of people doing astrology in 2021. That doesn’t make it real.

caddemon 5y ago

ECT was certainly way over applied back in the day, but it's made a bit of a comeback in recent years for treating severe depression. In the sense that clinical trials are science, it's definitely science. It's true we don't really understand why it works, but you could say the same thing about a number of drugs for treating psychiatric disease, and I doubt you would say those are not science. Here is a FAQ about ECT from Hopkins: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/specialty_areas/brain_stimulation/ect/faq_ect.html https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/specialty_areas/b...

disgruntledphd2 5y ago

Can you provide a definition of psychology then please? I'm hesitant to try my skills at one that doesn't map somewhere to neuroscience.

luffapi 5y ago
It’s the study of the “mind” (not brain). It’s very basis is the study of a pseudo-religious phenomenon. Neuroscience is real science because it studies the brain not the artificial and archaic concept of the mind. There can be personal value in studying psychology. It’s just not science, it’s fictional.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dash2 5y ago
  How does this critique apply, e.g. to Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations? Or, if you want something more rigorous, to prospect theory and other decision theorists' attempts to build simple tractable models of decision-making?
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > It’s the study of the “mind” (not brain). It’s very basis is the study of a pseudo-religious phenomenon So you don't believe in the existence of qualia? That's a pretty strong philosophical position.