Psychology NOT religion

[President_Elect_Shang]

Caponq: now that’s some good stuff. Thank you for the input. About the religion part it was only my conjuncture, I don’t try to say it is or is not the/a problem. I only mean to offer one possibility amongst many. Over the eastern viewpoint I don’t have much knowledge but wouldn’t Buddhists say the same thing as Hinduism? I really don’t know maybe you can shed another light on this topic for us all. Psychologists don’t deal with religion at all. I feel (my opinion only) that religion is better left to theology and philosophy. Point in fact (I respect physics so much I like to use it for examples) physicists don’t deal with god but they are not considered wrong for it.

For krsk: I see your point and agree that they are not compatible. I don’t think that psychology should be moved into the Arts and Humanities though because the neural processes that operate your hand and thus your mind and finally your behavior can be measured and controlled in labs. For an example look at a person that suffers for a sever blow to the head and caused the loss speech. Their behavior has most certainly been modified by a quantifiable effect. But I DO NOT let me stress DO NOT view religion as an impediment to science. My original post that spawned this (if you read back) was only offering an explanation it was not a statement. You are right to say that psychology started in anti-religion views. Also it is worth noting that most of the originators of those theories did not consider themselves to be psychologists. Modern day psychology, at least the behavioral paradigm avoids the topic of religion. This is not intended to imply that there is no spirit or god; it is simply that a spirit with present day technology cannot be quantified. Behaviorists such as myself want to understand what can be seen and measured of which thought process cannot. I don’t believe that this is ground to move us out of the science field though. Once again I must point out that that other sciences do not attempt to fit the spirit into the picture either. Finally you stated “Actually, many traditional scientists believed in God. Newton, Pascal, and Faraday, to name just three, were all Christians.” Do you mean to imply that all psychologists are non-Christians or is this stereotyping? Either way it still does not tie into the claim that religion is a part of science and thus psychology in that one respect cannot be science.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements.

I thought you had to special ops to do that?

[Suicide Junkie]

If you made the first post, you can still edit it, and change the subject while you're at it.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements.

I thought you had to special ops to do that?

---

Edit the first post, and change the subject line.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements.

I thought you had to special ops to do that?

---

Edit the first post, and change the subject line.

---

Ah, wow learn something new everyday. Thank you.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Hows that, better?

[mlmbd]

President Elect Shang,

Not stimuli but schema, the perception of correlated things.

Definition from Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary;

Main Entry: sche·ma
Pronunciation: 'skE-m&
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sche·ma·ta /-m&-t&/; also schemas
Etymology: Greek schEmat-, schEma
Date: circa 1890
1 : a diagrammatic presentation; broadly : a structured framework or plan : OUTLINE
2 : a mental codification of experience that includes a particular organized way of perceiving cognitively and responding to a complex situation or set of stimuli.

"Stimuli" is a subset. or part of schema. If you will. My comment stands!

And "learning" is always good.

mlmbd

[Instar]

Anything but Plato's eulogy of the cave
dont ask me the core questions... Ill kill you all if you ask me the core questions...
hehehe
inside joke
(with myself)

[Fyron]

Instar, what are the core questions?

[Baron Munchausen]

Whoooeeee, what a lot of tangled ideas! These several topics are rather closely related, though.

Krsqk, who do you consider to be the 'founders' of Psychology? Freud was certainly an atheist, being a member of the Positivist movement and the Vienna Circle in particular. But 'psychology' was not his invention. And even his own movement - Psychoanalysis - had some rebels who disagreed with his reductionist views, Carl Jung being the most notable. Certainly there are many psychologists today who want to reduce the human mind to chemical activity in the brain. You can read some frightening things in the works of Thomas Szaz, a leading critic of modern 'industrial' psychology/psychiatry. But the 'reductionists' are not the only school of psychology.

Plato's analogy of the Cave was actually intended to deal with just this sort of mentality. Even in his time there were 'materialists' who discounted anything other than what could be learned through the senses. Being chained up so you can only look at the 'shadows' of things is his image of the sort of person who will only consider the senses as a source of information. Jung's psychology has often been compared to Platonism with 'archetypes' functioning so much like the 'forms' of Platonic philosophy. Like Plato, Jung kept saying there were other sources of information that just the senses. Poor Jung often got tarred as 'anti-modern' for his resistance to reductionism.