Debunking the Lorentz System As a Framework For Human Emotions

New submitter Enokcc writes "In a series of research articles it was claimed that a famous system of nonlinear differential equations originally used to model atmospheric convection can also be used to model changes in human emotions over time. It took an amateur in psychology with a computer science background to notice how extraordinary these claims were, and with the help of experts on psychology he has now published a critique. The latest of the questionable research articles (with 360 citations) is now 'partially withdrawn.'" Notably, skeptic Nick Brown's paper is co-authored by Alan Sokal, famous for exposing nonsense by less diplomatic means.

Comments

not much news

[rubycodez]

Psychology is not a science. It attempts to use methods and analysis from science but that is as far as it can go. Of course most of it can be debunked.

Hey, genius. Debunk something worthwhile.

[VortexCortex]

Why not actually make a big difference if we're going to have a team of "expert" psychologists debunk something? You know, like get the bogus Duluth Model thrown out since it's used as the framework for almost all domestic abuse therapy / explanation. Since it presents abuse as gendered, but men and women are equally aggressive. Hell, there's plenty of evidence... So, Shouldn't be hard, eh?

Oh, that's right. It's fucking Psychiatry / Psychology -- Damn non-sciences. Whoopdee fucking do, let's debunk some shit everyone knows is bunk to begin with and doesn't fucking matter. I got a better idea: Let's throw out any and all existing shit about predicting why folks act certain ways and let the Neroscientists and Cyberneticians handle it -- You know, the actual sciences based on real evidence and repeatable observable physical phenomena linked to reality by more than uninformed guesses.

I guess everyone's scratching their own itches, but I mean, if we're not going to do the right thing and declassify psychology as science, then if I were looking at making a positive impact I'd start at the Duluth Model since abuse is largely cyclic: Most rapists and abusers were themselves abused. So, the current most wide spread approach to domestic violence counseling creates more female victims in the next cycle. I mean, if we're going to debunk shit, why not take your pick of other crap that's sticking out like a sore thumb, is obviously blatantly wrong, and just plain ol' sexist? Oh, I think you know why... Because you're not fucking scientists.

Re:debunking the easily debunkable

[complete loony]

Case in point; Steve Keen's Debunking Economics contains many examples of economic theories that are either provably false, or run counter to the empirical evidence, or both.