The scientific theory.

[Xodiac]

Freud's theory of personality is based solely on a small group of females whom he considered to be neurotic. The id, ego, and superego as well as the influence of subconsious processes on the humang mind are paramount. Because the consious mind represses these subconsious urges and attempts to deny them, it is not possible to "prove" or "disprove" to any reasonable degree.

The same can be said of "intelligent design". The whole argument against teaching it in schools is that it is not a scientific thery because it cannot be tested or proven.

What is the difference here that makes one okay to teach?

[Dionysos]

This is a bad analogy to make. Freud's theory isn't the only theory being taught, it's one of many. Look at Jung, amongst others.

There's also a difference in the meaning behind the word 'theory' when applied to different fields. A psychological theory doesn't have the same burdens of proof that a scientific theory does. Both have their vetting processes, sure, but they're done in different manners. Scientific theory is based on provable and disprovable experiments that can be repeated and hold up to peer review. Psychological theory doesn't have the same sort of experimental requirements(though the peer review is still a major part).
It's the nature of science, you must back up your assertions with data to prove the assertion. It must be provable and it must be repeatable. Until intelligent design can come up with a way to prove their theories, there is no reason for it to be taught in public schools.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

This is a EXTREMELY bad analogy to make.

Bolded and quoted for emphasis.

[Rufus Punk]

Originally Posted by Keith P

Bolded and quoted for emphasis.

Seconded, thirded, and ratified.

[Xodiac]

This is a bad analogy to make. Freud's theory isn't the only theory being taught, it's one of many. Look at Jung, amongst others.

It was also suggested that ID be taught as one theory alongside evolution.

There's also a difference in the meaning behind the word 'theory' when applied to different fields. A psychological theory doesn't have the same burdens of proof that a scientific theory does. Both have their vetting processes, sure, but they're done in different manners. Scientific theory is based on provable and disprovable experiments that can be repeated and hold up to peer review. Psychological theory doesn't have the same sort of experimental requirements(though the peer review is still a major part).
It's the nature of science, you must back up your assertions with data to prove the assertion. It must be provable and it must be repeatable. Until intelligent design can come up with a way to prove their theories, there is no reason for it to be taught in public schools.

Maybe you had a different experience, but during my intro psych class, the first few weeks were nothing but "psychology is a science and better than 'common sense'" and we went over the steps of the scientific method. Psychology seems to be presented to the as the scientific study of mind and behaviour. Can anyone recall being taught that psychology is only a pseudo-science?

Until intelligent design can come up with a way to prove their theories, there is no reason for it to be taught in public schools.

Your assumptions are all wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But can you please explain why, if you replace the words "intelligent design" in your sentance with "psychology" your statement no longer reflects your opinion?

Is the difference the "peer review" you mentioned? A lot of creationists/ID folk are lauded by their "peers" as being truely inspired. (whatever the hell that means)

People, in general, don't seem to be aware of the difference bettween phsicial medical theory and mental health theory. Isn't it a little odd to treat people using a methodology devised from unprovable theory?

I'm thinking, the study of psychology is still in its infancy, and though people can be successfully treated, its all a bit of a shot in the dark until the field of neurology is able to better understand how the human brain works. It seems to me that only then will we really have a good, solid SCIENCE of psychology.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

It was also suggested that ID be taught as one theory alongside evolution.

Maybe you had a different experience, but during my intro psych class, the first few weeks were nothing but "psychology is a science and better than 'common sense'" and we went over the steps of the scientific method. Psychology seems to be presented to the as the scientific study of mind and behaviour. Can anyone recall being taught that psychology is only a pseudo-science?

Your assumptions are all wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But can you please explain why, if you replace the words "intelligent design" in your sentance with "psychology" your statement no longer reflects your opinion?

Is the difference the "peer review" you mentioned? A lot of creationists/ID folk are lauded by their "peers" as being truely inspired. (whatever the hell that means)

People, in general, don't seem to be aware of the difference bettween phsicial medical theory and mental health theory. Isn't it a little odd to treat people using a methodology devised from unprovable theory?

I'm thinking, the study of psychology is still in its infancy, and though people can be successfully treated, its all a bit of a shot in the dark until the field of neurology is able to better understand how the human brain works. It seems to me that only then will we really have a good, solid SCIENCE of psychology.

I'm boiling this down because I don't feel like getting too in depth, but have you taken anything beyond the intro course? Go take a biopsychology course, you'll see there's a ton of scientific knowledge already out there. It's well beyond the "shot in the dark" point you described.

The only way you can make a cohesive parallel between psychology and the science of evolution is if we go into biopsych again. In that subsection of psychology they rely on science in the form of which chemicals cause X reaction that affects a person's mood. There are experiments you can do over and over again to prove/disprove these chemical reactions. Other than that section of psych though, the argument fails to hold water. You can do psych experiments to an individual and possibly get the same result again, but it doesn't scale well because human emotions - beyond the aforementioned section - are ridiculously complex. Evolution and the science behind it has a much more concrete backing; you have fossil records, carbon dating, etc. etc. to back up and verify claims. With human emotions, you can't say for 100% certain why anyone does anything. Psychology is in large part conjecture or an educated guess. Scientific theory has a method of proving & disproving information, a way of distilling it into facts. ID doesn't fit into this because the root belief that there is an intelligent hand guiding the changes is inherently unprovable.

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by Rufus Punk

Seconded, thirded, and ratified.

Notarized.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Look at Jung

I read somewhere that Jung's theories weren't that widely published in college level text books. Interesting stuff though.

[Rufus Punk]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I read somewhere that Jung's theories weren't that widely published in college level text books.

Which kinda lends to Jonny's point. The art of understanding the mind/emotion/rationale of humans is a tough science to prove much less show as a full doctrine. I'd wager that its only been the last 100 years that we've gotten to a point were we are actually assigning proper thought to key actions/personalities without being wacko ourselves.

[Xodiac]

I'm boiling this down because I don't feel like getting too in depth, but have you taken anything beyond the intro course? Go take a biopsychology course, you'll see there's a ton of scientific knowledge already out there. It's well beyond the "shot in the dark" point you described.

Okay, "shot in the dark" was too strong an expression. I'm sure we're making a lot of leeway into the feild of biopsychology and that's great, I think that's eventually going to completely legitimize psychological theory to the same extent as other scientific fields. But I also think we still have a long way to go ...many functions of our brain remain fundamentally mysterious. Not to mention the philosophical question: how much about the human MIND can we understand by studying the human BRAIN?

If the mind really is something seperate and distinct from the brain, does it exist in phisical reality? And if not, how can we study it and call it science? (I'm just playing devil's advocate here.)

[Xodiac]

The point is that Evolution itself is a FACT, the theory part comes about when we try to explain it.

Like the man says, when we discuss Einsteins "Theory of Gravity" we dont have to spend an equal amount of time on how apples could begin to float because gravity is a FACT and the possiblility of spontaneous floatation does not merit it.

This applies to ID in that EVOLUTION IS A FACT. We dont have to spend any time explaining a theory that says we spontaneously appeared because it is a FACT that we evolved. only the how is subject to question, not that we did.

Yeah, I know. I agree.

And "The Emperor's New Mind" looks FASCINATING! Though I doubt it will single handedly solve philosophical problems about the relationship between the brain and mind, I'm really interested in what he has to say about AI, and, if I'm reading into the blurb correctly, he's going to try to link quantum uncertainty with the decision making process (or, to use stronger language, free will)

It's an interesting coincidence then, that he chooses to take on the topic of AI, because I've been thinking a lot about the subject recently. (and here we go on a tangent!) There is a computer program that has a very large list of "things". The computer asks the user questions, and the user answers them. So, in a simplified form, it might look something like this:

Is it alive? y
Is it edible? y
Is it red? n
Is it yellow? y
Is it sour? n
Your object is a banana.

The gut reaction is "Oh wow, that computer is so smart, it was able to guess what I was thinking of!" But if you think about it, it's not really true. The computer has no idea what a banana is. It is simply manipulating raw data and spitting it out like a parrot. All the computer really "knows" is mathematics and basic logic. There is no real significance, no motivation. Now, this may not be the case for new methods of computing, such as neural networking and simulation of DNA instructions of simple life forms in robots. But, in any case, that technology still has such a ways to go that any guess is speculation.

Anyway, thanks for the book recomendations!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

here is a great quote of why the "theory" of intelligent design cannot be compared to the Theory of Evolution....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Here's a shorter one... they address different questions

Evolution can address how life forms change - eg - that from short beaked finches we can get long curved beaked finches, it can even explain how a bear-like animal decided it liked the ocean after all and moved back and become a whale - but - it does not explain how life orginates

ID offers an explanation for "why" but leaves it to science to explain "how"

That ID and Evolution are incompatible misses the point - the latter is a necessary function of the former even if the latter is an incomplete portion of that former

[Xodiac]

That ID and Evolution are incompatible misses the point - the latter is a necessary function of the former even if the latter is an incomplete portion of that former

Hah, I don't know why, but I never thought of this. I know a lot of people who belive in both God and evolution, but see the later as a tool/mechanism of the former. But, I just never thought to apply that to the ID debate in this way. The people who want to teach ID as an alternative or competeing theory to evolution are totally missing the point because neither necessarily precludes the other. It's like saying ladder theory is an "alternative" to the theory of evolution. They really don't even address the same issue!

[Hey Bubu]

you know all this shit would be a lot easier if people could just say "maybe" and expose kids to ALL theories of creation.

[Nyteshade]

Except it's not the school's responsibility to teach theories based on divinity. That is what church is for.