Non-organic (primary) mental disorders

[alloker]

SCANDAL IN PSYCHOLOGY: PART I

Testing Knowledge in Theory Work and Research

Karl Popper (1935/2002, p. 10) describes the process by which theories are tested as follows:

“With the help of other statements, previously accepted, certain singular statements—which we may call ‘predictions’—are deduced from the theory; especially predictions that are easily testable or applicable. . . . Next we seek a decision as regards these (and other) derived statements by comparing them with the results of practical applications and experiments. If this decision is positive, that is, if the singular conclusions turn out to be acceptable, or verified, then the theory has, for the time being, passed its test: we have found no reason to discard it.”
 
Paul Reynolds (1971, p. 144) describes the same process under the heading “theory-then-research”:

“(1) Develop an explicit theory in either axiomatic or process description form [his explanation of how the theory is developed is quoted below]. (2) Select a statement generated by the theory [i.e., deduced from the theory] for comparison with the results of empirical research. (3) Design a research project to “test” the chosen statement’s correspondence with empirical research. . . . (5) If the statement [deduced] from the theory corresponds with the results of the research, select further statements for testing, or attempt to determine the limitations of the theory (the situations where the theory does not apply).”

The fact that a tested theory can predict the results of research means that it can be used not only to predict those results but also to explain and control them, because the predictions are made by deducing them from the causal laws of nature that the theory contains. Consequently, it can be said that the test of a theory is its usefulness in predicting, explaining, and controlling, where possible, the phenomena which occur naturally or are produced artificially.

The grand theories of physics which shaped the technologies and even the whole of civilization have been tested by the method described above. But unfortunately, this method of testing knowledge is not used in contemporary psychology and is even considered unscientific. Psychologists have adopted a different method of testing knowledge, which they use exclusively. This well-known method is used in experimental investigation, or research, in which knowledge is proved by the very process through which it is generated, whereas theories are generated and tested through two different successive processes. This two-stage process, which is used in theory work but not in research, allows the discovery of the most general laws of nature, as will be explained.

Under the heading “research-then-theory,” Reynolds (1971, p. 140) explains roughly how research is done and exposes the fact that he thinks that research produces “theoretical statement,” or theories.

“(1) Select a phenomenon and list all the characteristics of the phenomenon. (2) Measure all the characteristics of the phenomenon in a variety of situations (as many as possible). (3) Analyze the resulting data carefully to determine if there are any systematic patterns among the data “worthy” of further attention. (4) Once significant patterns have been found in the data, formalization of these patterns as theoretical statements constitutes the laws of nature (axioms, in Bacon’s terminology).”

The “significant patterns” that are discovered through research, which are called also regularities, are considered manifestations of the laws of nature, but they constitute empirical knowledge, not theoretical statements even after any “formalization.” Thus, Reynolds describes roughly the experimental method, or research, but presents it as the method by which theories are developed. This is a common mistake of all contemporary psychologists, because they call any explanation of phenomena a theory and require it to be tested through deduction from the phenomena as explained by Reynolds under the heading “research-then-theory.” Reynolds does not require the testing of the “theoretical statements,” or “laws of nature” using the method of theory-testing that he describes under the heading “theory-then-research,” and this shows that he does not really think that these “theoretical statements” constitute theories that need to be tested like theories are.   

One shortcoming of the experimental method is that it does not allow the discovery of the most general laws of nature or even the laws that are generally valid in a particular area of reality, because it isolates different types of phenomenon from each other to study each type singly, as Reynolds expressed by saying “select a phenomenon.” Also, research involves reproducing the studied phenomenon experimentally by manipulating its independent variables, which is not an operation that can be done in the study of all types of phenomenon. For example, non-organic (primary) mental disordered cannot be experimentally produced because of ethical reasons and also because their causes are not known, as admitted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

A phenomenon that cannot be caused willfully can still be studied experimentally by using statistical analysis. But this method too has not exposed the etiologies of primary mental disorders so far. The reason is that all scientific investigations, experimental or theoretical, begin by generating a hypothesis or adopting an existing one. Russell (1946, p. 529) mentions this fact in these words: “Usually some hypothesis is a necessary preliminary to the collection of facts, since the selection of facts demands some way of determining relevance. Without something of this kind, the mere multiplicity of facts is baffling.” Only a few discoveries have been made accidentally without conducting research based on a hypothesis.

Reynolds does not mention the use of hypotheses in research. In reality, the “systematic patterns” and the “significant patterns” that he is talking about, and the quality of being “worthy of further attention” are discerned and evaluated as such on the basis of the hypothesis that is used in each research. Again, all contemporary psychologists can be criticized for not paying sufficient attention to the hypotheses that they use is research, as will be explained in Part II of this message. It is shown in Part II that an invalid basic hypothesis is used tacitly in all works on primary mental disorders.

Because contemporary psychologists consider research the only valid method of scientific investigation, they expect the most recent research results to solve the problems that need to be solved. In reality, the bottleneck in psychology is today not the lack of sufficient empirical knowledge but the lack of wide-scope integrations which can be realized only through theory construction and testing. Besides, the use of an invalid basic hypothesis continues to make all research on primary mental disorders inconclusive.

A final but very important shortcoming of the experimental method is that it allows only the study the phenomena that can be observed. This is a very serious handicap especially in the study of primary mental disorders. The reason is that mental phenomena cannot be objectively observed and may not even be known subjectively, especially in relation to mental disorders which involve mental, behavioral, and somatic products that cannot be controlled and cannot even be understood consciously.

In opposition to research, theoretical investigation (a) integrates different-looking types of phenomenon and thus makes the discovery of general laws possible; (b) allows the study of unobserved phenomena because the theoretical findings can be tested not through direct observation but through the observation of the consequences of those findings; (c) hypothesis generation is an integral part of theoretical investigation, for example in physics, and is done more consciously in physics than in psychological research, as explained in Part II of this message; consequently, the hypotheses used in theoretical investigations have a better chance of being valid and useful compared to those used in psychological research. The theoretical method will be further explained in Part II.

CONCLUSION 

Psychology fails as a science precisely where psychological help is most needed. The rejection of the theoretical method of scientific investigation by contemporary psychologists makes the understanding of the etiologies of primary mental disorders and the discovery of effective methods of psychotherapy impossible. In reality, this rejection is not based on any scientific criteria but is caused by the fact that Feud’s psychoanalytic theory has been found unscientific after it reached the summit of popularity. Psychologists felt deceived and academically prohibited theory construction for more than a decade, thinking that the theoretical method was unscientific, at least concerning mental phenomena. “Those who still wished to generate theory had to brook the negative, sometimes punitive, attitudes of their colleagues or professors” (Glaser & Strauss, 1999, p. 10). The truth is that Freud developed the “psychoanalytic theory” not as a real scientific theory but as a therapeutic tool based on a lie about the etiology of hysteria. It failed as a therapeutic tool too. The ban on theory construction is now formally lifted, but psychologists still believe, like Reynolds, that direct deduction from the phenomena, i.e., research, is the only valid method of scientific investigation. They call theory any explanation of phenomena, including research results which constitute empirical knowledge, not theories.

A LARGE PART OF HUMANITY CONTINUES TO SUFFER BECAUSE CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGISTS INSIST ON USING RESEARCH AS THE ONLY VALID METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. THIS IS A SCANDALOUS SITUATION THAT NEEDS TO BE TERMINATED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.