In Australia, you need 4 yrs undergraduate study in psychology and two years post grad/supervision to be registered to practice (6 years in all, minimum). And to call yourself any sort of psychologist you must be registered with your state authority. I imagine the US and most of the rest of the world is the same. Where in the world are you TVAA that you can call yourself a psychologist with no qualifications?
I reckon I’ll just be a brain surgeon then. I already have a knife and a cat. 
I saw SNL last night and now know who TVAA reminds me of!
“Hi! I’m Brian Fellow!”
** And clinical psychology is not a science. (There’s no such thing as a non-empirical science, Zoe.)
Those qualification requirements are for therapists, auliya: clinical psychologists and psychiatrists (also social workers, now that I think about it). If you want to treat someone, you need to go through a long process of study and testing, then get a license or two. Then you are legally permitted to be a practictioner.
A cognitive psychologist is a scientist who studies and analyzed the mind. In some ways it’s similar to a computer scientist or mathematician who studies information processing; in other ways it’s a highly experiment-driven field.
Sadly, cognitive psychology is still shackled to its larger sibling clinical psychology, which is why cog. is still classified in the liberal arts. It’s a shame, really.
Wrong again. As Adler points out:
Mathematics is obviously empirical. There’s no way to resolve any questions in math unless we observe the results of a computational model.
The problem is that most people don’t bother thinking about how their minds work, and so they don’t realize that their brains are computational devices as well. Analyzing the truth of a mathematical claim is a computation.
Is your ignorance bottomless?
I consider myself to be a musician, I have no formal credentials for this, perhaps I am pulling the wool over the eyes of my (occasional) audiences – if they only knew the truth, they would no doubt hear my fraudulent and uncertificated efforts for the cacophany that they surely must be.
Get a fucking grip, people.
And how do we recognize that the chain of reasoning is valid? By analysis – we perform series of operations and see what result they give. Whether something “follows from the hypotheses” can only be determined by apply operations to the hypotheses and finding what the result it. It doesn’t matter if we do this in our heads, on paper, or inside of the computer: either way, we’re observing the result of a computational system, which makes our evidence empirical in nature.
A lot of these issues wouldn’t come up if you’d just stop and think for a moment instead of accepting the positions you can find official cites for. But, of course, you’re really big on mindless acceptance of authority.
TVAA, I have never before met anyone who failed to recognize the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. You are stretching the word “empirical” so far that I fear it will snap in half.
But that is precisely my point: the distinctions we have always used are wrong.
That’s precisely why cognitive psych. rejected the concept of the homunculus – the abstracted “little man” who directed and controlled thought. We can’t explain thought by referring to a consciousness that directs it, because we then can’t explain how the “little man” thinks.
If I want to solve a multiplication problem, I accept data and perform a series of operations on it, reaching an “answer”. That process is a form of computation, and it’s bound by the same limits as computation.
All events can be considered to be a configuration in time that is acted upon by operators (the laws of physics) to produce a result: the next configuration in time.
"If I want to solve a multiplication problem, I accept data and perform a series of operations on it, reaching an “answer”. That process is a form of computation, and it’s bound by the same limits as computation.
I find that a fascinating idea. Thank you.
You are of course assuming that the brain is a mechanism. I also make that assumption, but many don’t. Roger Penrose, for example, argues against it. Yet another GD topic?
You’re most welcome.
It doesn’t matter if the workings of the brain involve synaptic firing patterns, quantum mechanical tunneling in cell cytotubules, or heavenly angels dancing in patterns: they’re all systems that encode data and operate according to laws, moving from one configuration to another.
I realize how much you despise accomplished and recognized scholarship, Vorlon, in favor of your homespun armchair navel gazing, but I feel compelled to reference once again the Trent Universtity site. There, it is explained that, although you might use empricism to guide your thinking in mathematical computations, you have not satisfied the rigors of the mathematical system until you have provided proof in the form of a nonempirical chain of inference.
It is NOT simply a matter of performing a series of operations and checking the results. Consider the proposition that all numbers greater than 4 are the sum of two primes. You can provide empirical evidence of the proposition until the cows come home, but without a conclusion that follows from a chain of inference, you have proved nothing.
As a matter of fact, it is extremely ironic that you are championing empiricism when extracting a cite from you to support almost any position you hold is like pulling hen’s teeth. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is nonempirical in nature. You are using abstract reason to attempt to convince us all that you have discovered the secret knowledge that has escaped the greatest minds since antiquity.
Debating you is like trying to catch a greased cat.
But how do you recognize that chain of inference as valid? By verifying that it actually works, which requires computation.
When presented with an argument, we examine the given assumptions, apply the rules of logic to them, and derive conclusions, which we then compare to the conclusions provided. If they match, we say that the argument is valid. It’s all computation, dude.
I have an idea, Libertarian: why don’t you step back into GD, post your argument in favor of the idea that we can reach conclusions without falling back onto computation, and we’ll get other Debaters to evaluate our debate? I’d hate to further derail this discussion of how I don’t know anything about mental illness.
(Still waiting, Guin.)
Absolutely not. That’s the whole point. Verification about whether it actually works is a separate process from the proof. Logic and mathematics is an abstraction that is intended to model reality. There is nothing empirical about it.
A logical or mathematical assertion is true or false without regard to the meanings of the terms involved. (Cite)
And no, I don’t have any intention of returning to Debates at the moment. I don’t feel like I am welcome there, and so I don’t feel like they are very great.
And how do logic and mathematics work? How do we distinguish valid proofs from invalid proofs? For that matter, how do we generate proofs in the first place?
By following operations.
The point is trivially obvious, yet Libertarian is completely unable to understand it. Guess what, Lib? The Pit doesn’t welcome you either.
Idiot. There is a difference between “generating proofs” and “proofs”. It’s like the difference between removing a kidney and medical science.
Haven’t you ever watched kids learning the algorithms for long division? They often internalize them incorrectly, and are then unable to fix their errors because they keep referring to the incorrect algorithm.
How do you tell that the proof is correct? Maroon.