Pros And Cons Of Phrenology

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

He explains why UCTs are as popular as they are in modern society, and why people should nevertheless disregard and approach them with caution. What Keeley refers to as “virtues” are the reason for the popularity of UCTs. He gives the virtue of explanatory reach as the first and main reason for UCTs popularity, which is the account of all knowledge including errant data. This is in stark contrast to the received theory, which is imperfect by nature. This quality of UCTs is particularly attractive because it appeals to human rationality by allowing for no loopholes. Keely argues that errant data alone is not significant enough, and that a theory should never fit all of the data. This leads into one of the main points, concerning falsifiability and skepticism. Unfalsifiability is acceptable when the item or person under investigation is not actively trying to escape from the investigator. Keeley contends that the problem is not the innate unfalsifiability, but rather the increasing amount of skepticism required. Keely seeks a hole in the concept of conspiracy theories that accounts for a person’s innate sense that belief in a particular conspiracy theory is not justified. In the case of the natural sciences, falsifiability is acceptable because of the rigorous protocols in place, and therefore, we are warranted in believing scientific claims.

Health psychology is a diverse career field; psychologists can be employed anywhere from hospitals to research to influencing health care. “Health psychologists… conduct clinical interviews and behavioral assessments. They may also participate in interventions with individuals or groups — for example, programs to help people reduce stress, quit smoking and avoid sedentary behaviors…They may study the causes of health problems and how to prevent them, or explore why certain groups don’t seek care when they need it. They may also help patients understand and come to terms with a diagnosis, or follow a treatment regimen in order to increase the probability of their full recovery (American Psychology Association). Health psychologists have a broad spectrum of people to treat as they treat people with mental disorders and create treatment plans for people; health psychologists need to understand all parts of psychology to provide effective care for their patients because health psychologists research, test people, and help their patients gain skills so they can better take care of themselves.

Facts are statements that are indisputably true. Truthful statements are authentic because they are widely accepted to be accurate and fit reality. When answering the question “given access to the same facts , how is it possible that there can be disagreements between experts in a discipline?”, one must consider the definition of an expert. For the sake of this paper I am defining an expert as someone who excels in their field , and constantly evolves their knowledge as their field progresses. I believe that disagreements between experts when presented with the same facts, occur because of bias. Bias is a sway towards one side or view of a situation or statement. Therefore I ask , how does someone’s personal bias affect their interpretation

In recent news, a new community has outwardly spoken on the theory, the earth is flat. This community calls themselves “The Flat Earth Society” or “Flat Earthers”. This began around the mid-20th century and has rapidly grown with the expansion of social media, and influencers such as rapper B.o.B and basketball player Shaquille O’Neal.

Not only do we have a tendency to ignore and misinterpret evidence that conflicts with our own views; we also have tendency to look for and recognize only evidence that confirms them. We tend to look for confirming rather than disconfirming evidence, even though the latter can often be far more revealing.

Psychology, due to its complexity can be approached in a variety of ways. To help us understand the human mind, behaviourist and psychodynamic approaches have helped us understand the alternative outlooks in the science of mind and behaviour. Both approaches can be examined by the means of theoretical assumptions and methodology.

Ancient cultures did not believe the Earth to be the spherical object we know Earth to be

Throughout history, science has always faced challenges from outside groups who work to mold science to their beliefs, ignoring evidence and commonly held facts. Following in the legacy of the flat world and an Earth centered Universe, young Earth creationists bend science to fit their explanations of the Earth’s origin and timeline. Evidence for the ancient age of the Earth is present in every discipline of Earth science and directly refutes claims made by young Earth creationists. It is important to examine these claims and rebut them, as their denial of proper scientific understanding hampers progress and has wider implications for the future of our society.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

Biological psychology is the study of how biology affects a number of psychological processes i.e. how the mind affects the body (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner & Hood 2015). The study of the mind has had many influential figures throughout history that often use each other’s ideas as a stepping stone to further advance psychology, some of the first being Plato and Aristotle. Plato believed in nativism and theorised some skills and characteristics are innate and a person is born with them (Schacter et al, 2015). Aristotle, however, was in favour of philosophical empiricism i.e. that all knowledge is acquired through experience, yet current scientists do not consider that nativism and empiricism are entirely accurate (Schacter et al, 2015). Aristotle also believed that the brain existed to cool the blood, as during that time people were sceptical that an organ could be responsible for behaviour (Kolb, Whishaw & Teskey 2016). The next major advancement in biological psychology was the introduction of phrenology by Francis Gall, Gall’s theory suggested that all psychological capabilities had a specific place in the brain (Schacter et al, 2015). This theory later turned out to be correct, although was overshadowed by Gall’s insistence that he could state a person’s character dependant on the size of lumps and indentations on a person’s skull, which he thought would represent the size of that brain region beneath (Schacter et al, 2015). Due to this, in spite of a large following, phrenology was quickly discredited. Biologist Pierre Flourens, unhappy with Gall’s research, began removing localized areas of the brain in various animals to observe their behaviour (Schacter et al, 2015). Flourens then found that animal’s movements differed to those with intact brains. This mirrored a situation for surgeon Paul Broca with whom one of his patients had damage to the left side of

Franz Joseph Gall created the first comprehensive theory of brain localization in 1796. Phrenology is a pseudoscientific theory that asserts an individual’s personality and mental capacities can be determined by the shape of their skull (Cooter, 1984). “Organology” was the original term that Gall used to describe his science; it was Gall’s follower, T.I.M Forster, who coined the term phrenology (Van Wyhe, 1999). Gall’s contemporary, Joseph Franz Spurzheim, was responsible for the dissemination of Gall’s ideas to the United Kingdom and the United States (Selby, 1993). Gall inspired many “egotistical” men to promulgate phrenology, and it “attracted such men because of its promise of superlative intellectual authority with minimal effort” (Van Wyhe, 1999). Phrenology

The roots of psychology date back to Egypt and the Egyptian mystery system. Psychology has evolved from philosophy, medicine, theology, and science. Psychology evolved out of coalescence of natural science, and also the branch of philosophy which is known as epistemology, which is also known in the theory of knowledge. Psychology in its early times was devote and mainly focused to understanding the mind, as well as measuring it. After this later on in time, psychology focused on understanding behavior.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat