Advances in the field of scientific research are an incentive to explain phenomena that were previously unexplained and find new ways to improve all aspects of society. However, it is regrettable to note even in this technological era how people in their desire to recover from their maladies, will do almost anything to improve their situations. Since reading about the primal therapy, I have become a skeptic of such therapy modality. Primal therapy, also known as “scream therapy” was proposed by Arthur Janov; it is a psychodynamic technique that claims to cure ailments of physiological and psychological nature: high blood pressure, cancer, anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug addictions to name a few, (Moore, 2001). Moreover, claims have also been made of more radical changes, including switching people with homosexual preferences to heterosexual, (Williams & Edgar, 2015). According to Janov, prenatal and early childhood experiences, including trauma, influence our functioning and future course of our lives. Janov 's assertions do not rest on a scientific basis; in …show more content…
Pseudo sciences resting on the priori method carefully stated their information and follow logical rules to arrive at acceptable conclusions. In this approach, the conclusions are derived by using logic through some a set of facts and/or declarations. The a priori method is more intellectual and respected approach compared with other methods such as tenacity and authority. Furthermore, is t has shown to be quite strong in the hands of that mathematicians and philosophers. Nevertheless, accurate scientific conclusions depend on both the reasoning and the exactness of the premises. This is where it comes the use of the scientific method; science meets reasoning and empiricism, using logical reasoning, but by means of a careful methodology, (Graziano & Raulin, 2010; Rosnow & Rosenthal,
Psychodynamic approaches often come under a lot of criticism as they fail to be explicit about the underlying bases of the theory. Cognitive theories are not very comfortable with explaining emotions and behavioural theories have difficulty explaining the mechanisms of improvements.
To me Pseudoscience is a hypothesis that just has information added to it over time. There would be no actual data that proves something. What I understand is that it is built off the beliefs of people and there is absolutely no way to prove if the suggested hypothesis or theory actually is relevant.
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form a therapy that is short term, problem focused, cost effective, and can be provided to a broad range of disorders and is based on evidence based practices, in fact it is has the most substantial evidence based of all psychosocial therapies (Craske, 2017, p.3). Evidence based practice are strategies that have been proven to be effective through research and science. One goal of CBT is to decrease symptoms and improve the quality of life by replacing maladaptive behaviors, emotions and cognitive responses with adaptive responses (Craske, 2017, p.24). The behavioral intervention goal is to decrease maladaptive behavior and increase adaptive behavior. The goal of cognitive intervention is to modify maladaptive cognitions, self-statements or beliefs. CBT grew out of behavioral therapy and the social learning theory (Dobson, 2012, p.9). It wasn’t until the 1950s that CBT started to swarm the psychology field. Due to nonscientific psychoanalytic approaches, there was a need for a better form of intervention which ensued to behavioral therapy (Craske, 2017, p.9). Behavioral therapy included two types of principles classical and instrumental. Classical conditioning is based on response behavior and instrumental conditioning is more voluntary behavior (Craske, 2017, p.10). Although there was improvement in treatment, clinicians were still dissatisfied
As the world moves into the twenty first century, Western civilizations are witnessing a surge of new technology, ideas and economic success. Urbanization is spreading rapidly and Western society’s push for progression is becoming more apparent. However, this obsession with advancement has begun to take its toll on the happiness of the citizens. Studies have shown that in 2002, up to 13 percent of U.S. citizens suffered from mental disorders and that this number has only increased since then (Rinpche 60). As a result of our push for new technology, more techniques and medication are evolving and being used in psychotherapy. We must, however, wonder if it is time to try something else? Despite new advancements in medication and psychology research, we are still witnessing an increase in psychology patients and it may be time to acknowledge the idea that we may not be able to solve these problems with the same mentality that created them. Fortunately, during this progressive push there have been a growing number of Western pioneers with the open mind of trying something new, specifically in the area of psychotherapy, and have been researching and experimenting with different forms of Eastern philosophy and its use in psychotherapy (Spretnak 2).
Freud’s approach trauma is based in the treatment of hysteria. According to Ringel and Brandell, Freud and Breuer, considered an “external event” as responsible of determining hysterical symptoms. The common component between hysteria and trauma is the outcome of fright. Freud and Breuer emphasis the importance of cathartic experience as a way of decreasing or vanishing the effect. The “cathartic method” that was developed by Breuer, assisted to release of inhibited emotions. Freud believed that the libido, necessary to be relished for the symptoms to be improved (p. 43).
Some contemporary philosophers question the Cartesian method, arguing that it disregards things like intuition. However, no other method has been as successful as the Cartesian one. The overwhelming progress of modern science is strong evidence for Descartes' philosophy, a kind of evidence no other school of thought can claim.
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
...01, p. 1188) Asking the team to speculate on causes for the slow acceptance of Energy Psychology, the reasons given by these key players ranged from reliance on concepts that cannot be measured, such as “subtle energies” and “thought fields,” to the lack of empirical research, to uncertainty about the mechanisms of action, to the inherent paradigm clash between ancient healing systems and conventional psychological explanations for therapeutic change. A more fundamental credibility problem, however, was also frequently mentioned in those discussions. And that is cognitive dissonance. There is nothing in the training or background of most clinicians or researchers that prepares them to understand how tapping on the skin can help overcome severe psychological disorders, no less to account for the speed and power with which positive clinical results are being reported.
Popper’s notion of pseudo-science stems from certain applications of the scientific method. Some specific cases of applications are deemed as pseudo-science because the hypothesis are unfalsifiable (Popper, 1962). A genuine scientific theory is where the theory details the yardstick to measure when the theory hold true or when it is faulty, making it falsifiable. Falsifiability refers to whether it is possible to present a situation or state of affairs during which the hypothesis is concluded to be false, without any equivocation.
The first issue presented corresponds to the Natural Sciences as a way of knowing. The Natural Sciences’ most prominent method of conclusion and fact basing is the scientific method. The nature of the Scientific method itself, includes a revisionist stage, where the initial hypothesis is assessed based upon the observations found. The equivalent to a hypothesis could and in most instances where data is reviewed, replace the currently accepted knowledge. For instance, initial knowledge would be the belief that the earth was flat. This knowledge would undergo controversy and ultimately be revise...
The connotation of psychology has evolved historically. However, within some cultures the word psychology and its subsidiary mental health, carry the dark undercurrent of the historical practices of trephining and exorcism. Such perception attributes to the stigma of mental health and its perceived embodiment of an unhinged individual. This particular mindset propels me to research the contributing elements involved in this dilemma. There is no greater feeling than the enlightenment one reaches at the end of a research study. Whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected the results, still reflect an attempt. The attempt drives psychologists and when the attempt reveals its results, we add or subtract a new piece to the never-ending puzzle of psychology. The results of psychological studies have strong communal influences and lead to the creation of new theories. I desire to partake in the hidden jewel of academia, the unremitting realm of psychological research.
The Scientific Method works because it is an uncomplicated, yet efficient system of reaching conclusions about simple or complex queries by following six to eight simple steps. According the University of California at Riverside, “the Scientific Method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion” (Wudka). In other words, this method of achieving results through testing and analysis is the finest way to find closure with truth, rather than remaining ...
Schreiber, Roxanne. “The Science Behind the Secret”. Empowerment Therapy. n.p. 2007. Web. 3 April 2014.
Nevertheless, by insisting “the business of psychiatry is control and coercion, not care and cure” or that it is “human activity governed by human interest” (Szasz 18-19), Szasz neglects to add to the solution. In turn, adding more confusion to the melting pot of stigma the public eye has to sort through while searching for answers. Furthermore, without physical proof of such acts of coercion or control by any person(s) or entity, Szasz is in turn, feeding careless propaganda to the public and the media as well as other professional and medical communities. In 1951, a humanistic psychologist by the name of Carl Rodgers, organized a few propositions that would later be a foundation in most cognitive therapies for the next few generations. Rodgers argues that:
Systematic empiricism: Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of