[com2kid]

> No responsible practitioner in the field of psychology argues that the mind is a biological organ or an empirical part of physical reality

Huh? What psychologists do you go to, ones only attached to churches?

I'm not going to bother arguing against mind body dualism[0], I have better things to do with my time! I am however confused, you bring up criticisms of a field not acting scientifically, but it appears you are then arguing in favor of pseudoscience of the worst sort, unless I have misconstrued your position.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%2...

[lutusp]

> I'm not going to bother arguing against mind body dualism ...

Good idea, you aren't qualified. Meanwhile, the mind is not a physical organ and it cannot be relied on to produce empirical evidence or falsifiable theories. This is a burden on psychology, it has been since the beginning of the field, and it explains why psychology has been determined not to be a science by scientists:

Title: "Why psychology isn't science"

Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-...

Quote: " Psychology isn't science. Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability."

The above explains why psychology is being replaced by neuroscience, the study of the nervous system. This change means we can gather actual data and shape real theories.

[com2kid]

Your position is still not 100% clear, although it appears that you are arguing that something called "the mind" exists outside the physical realm. Without resorting to religious nonsense that hardly seems like a tenable position.

Psychology's job has been one of categorization. It is fancy pattern recognition that some poor fools thought had actual meaning behind it. Now it turns out it also managed to realize that if you poke and prod someone in a certain way that occasionally a positive change can take place. Of course I'd argue that change has a real, physical, and measurable impact, just that we lack the tools to completely measure it in a non-destructive fashion! Thus, as you mentioned, actual scientists are coming along and fixing things up properly, but it is going to take some time.

> The above explains why psychology is being replaced by neuroscience, the study of the nervous system. This change means we can gather actual data and shape real theories.

Well yeah, we agree on that part. I am just confused as to your seeming insistence as to the existence of something non-physical. I can grok taking that position if one is a religious nutter, but your website[0] makes you out to be an individual who is well grounded in reality.

[0]Upon further research you appear to have been someone's whose software I used while growing up.

[lutusp]

> Your position is still not 100% clear, although it appears that you are arguing that something called "the mind" exists outside the physical realm.

Wait, hold on, I didn't invent the mind, psychologists did. I'm simply pointing out that the subject of psychological work doesn't have a physical existence.

I'm certainly not arguing that the mind "exists outside the physical realm". I'm arguing that psychology needs to reconcile their insistence that psychology is a science, with the nonphysical, non-empirical subject of their investigations.

> I am just confused as to your seeming insistence as to the existence of something non-physical.

Wait, hold on. I'm not arguing that the mind exists on a non-physical plane, that's psychology's claim -- I'm objecting to it, as do most scientists.

Title: "Why psychology isn't science"

Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-...

Quote: "Psychology isn't science. Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability."

> Now it turns out it also managed to realize that if you poke and prod someone in a certain way that occasionally a positive change can take place.

Yes, but without an explanation, that outcome can't rise to the level of science. Science requires explanations, mere descriptions won't do. If I say, "The night sky is filled with little points of light", that's a description, not very useful. But if I say, "Those points of light are actually distant thermonuclear furnaces like our own sun," that's an explanation, it's testable and falsifiable, and I've crossed the threshold of science.

[com2kid]

> Wait, hold on. I'm not arguing that the mind exists on a non-physical plane, that's psychology's claim -- I'm objecting to it, as do most scientists.

Ah OK, I was obviously confused.

All the psychologists I have known have admitted that they are just an inaccurate subset of neurology, none of them would follow the concept of "mind", I tend not to bother dealing with people who go for mind/body dualism!

Any psychologist who is an atheist and a skeptic pretty much has to come to the same conclusions. Meh.