(This follow-up appeared unexpected, many months after the above exchange)

I was linked to your article here and decided to take another look at the issue of psychology and our discussion.



After reviewing your arguments and looking at things on my own, it's still my opinion that psychology should be considered a science.

Whether a field is or is not a science cannot be, and is not, a matter of opinion — yours, mine or anyone else's. It must be a matter of established standards and objective evaluation. By science's currently accepted rules, psychology cannot be considered a science unless and until it is defined by clearly stated empirical, falsifiable theories that it successfully tests and whose results all practitioners accept. At present, this is spectacularly false.



What do I mean by "defined"? Physics is defined by what it calls the Standard Model. If an experimental result should come along that falsifies the Standard Model, that would not just be the end of the Standard Model, it would be the end of physics as a science. That's the rule that governs all sciences.

More importantly, the actual state of psychology is irrelevant to my modest request as AskScience moderator from you as a participant in the forum.

Can you translate that into English? Something is missing.

My entire argument with you was specifically about how to approach psychology in AskScience, and only in AskScience.





Second, don't you understand that the meaning of technical terms doesn't depend on where the words appear? That "science" means (or should mean) exactly the same thing in the AskScience forum as it does everywhere else?



Here is how science is



It is guided by natural law;

It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;

It is testable against the empirical world;

Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

It is falsifiable. Psychology doesn't meet these standards — it cannot be tested and compared to a defining empirical theory of the human mind, for lack of any such theory, and it therefore is not falsifiable. Further, there are no natural laws by which psychology is explained, therefore if you were to look at the above list with an open mind and respect the rule of law and the meaning of science, it would dawn on you that psychology should be excluded from public school classrooms along with Creationism.



The only reason it won't be excluded is because psychology is regarded as relatively harmless, compared to, say, Creationism, the reason for the above legal ruling. But this toleration on the part of public schools doesn't help psychology's scientific standing. First, at this point it comes to me that you're the moderator who ordered me to stop expressing my views or be banned.Second, don't you understand that the meaning of technical terms doesn't depend on where the words appear? That "science" means (or should mean) exactly the same thing in the AskScience forum as it does everywhere else?Here is how science is defined in courts of law (a ruling now in force to keep superstitious beliefs out of public school classrooms) — science must have these properties:Psychology doesn't meet these standards — it cannot be tested and compared to a defining empirical theory of the human mind, for lack of any such theory, and it therefore is not falsifiable. Further, there are no natural laws by which psychology is explained, therefore if you were to look at the above list with an open mind and respect the rule of law and the meaning of science, it would dawn on you that psychology should be excluded from public school classrooms along with Creationism.The only reason it won't be excluded is because psychology is regarded as relatively harmless, compared to, say, Creationism, the reason for the above legal ruling. But this toleration on the part of public schools doesn't help psychology's scientific standing.

While I consider your arguments concerning psychology being ‘non-science’ as specious,

This is not about your opinion, sir, it is about whether psychology is a science. It is not. The law says so, scientists say so, the current sitting director of the NIMH says so (see below), I say so.

you certainly have the right to express them.

No, as a matter of fact, I do not have that right — not at Reddit. I have been told in no uncertain terms that I may not express the scientific consensus on the topic we're discussing right now. Here is how the Reddit moderator (i.e. you) expressed his demand (this is a quote):



"Consider this your final warning on this matter. If you find yourself unable to accept psychology (and other 'non-core' fields) as a science in discussions on this subreddit, you will be banned from further contributions."



If you feel differently, you're addressing the wrong person, and you need to look in a mirror. My absence from Reddit is a matter of policy — an explicit Reddit policy that censors unpopular viewpoints.



Before you object that it wasn't Reddit that made that decision, it was just you, think again — it was Reddit, because you were acting as Reddit's gatekeeper, and if I had ignored your ruling and continued to speak freely, I would have been banned as surely as though Reddit's stockholders voted for that outcome. Welcome to the concept of adult responsibility.

You've expressed your opinions very eloquently on your website, in fact, which I applaud. However, AskScience is a specific forum with a very limited format because it is nothing more than a small subset of reddit; there's only so much room for subtlety.

What subtlety would that be? Psychology either does or does not meet the definition of a science. At the moment, for lack of a central, testable, defining theory, a property that all scientific fields have in common, it doesn't. There's nothing subtle about it. Most of psychology's content cannot be tested or potentially falsified, and with respect to the field's scientific standing, the seriousness of that issue cannot be overemphasized. In short, all scientific fields must be defined clearly enough that they can be falsified by new evidence, and psychology lacks this essential property.



I repeat my earlier statement — every researcher who has examined the field of psychology over the decades, starting with Freud and extending to the present, has come to the conclusion that psychology is not a science, and cannot become a science. But to find this out you would have to do your own research, something you're evidently incapable of doing.

It just so happens that there are a TON of questions that come in, which can best be answered by experts who have gone through the trouble of studying psychology at length.

Yes, just as with astrology — you don't want amateurs or dilettantes answering serious, well-intentioned questions about astrology when true experts are available. My point? Stick to one topic — the fact that people of differing degrees of expertise are answering questions about psychology is orthogonal to the question of whether psychology is a science.



Does psychology's present standing mean people should stop discussing psychology or using it in their daily lives because it's not a science? No, based on the precedent set by astrology, there's no reason to be rash — the fact that astrology is bunk hasn't had any serious effect on its public acceptance.

Your repeated hostile treatment of their chosen field of study, and those who study it, chases away the people most qualified to give the best scientific answers to these questions.

"In most areas of medicine, doctors have historically tried to glean something about the underlying cause of a patient’s illness before figuring out a treatment that addresses the source of the problem. When it came to mental or behavioral disorders in the past, however, no physical cause was detectable so the problem was long assumed by doctors to be solely “mental,” and psychological therapies followed suit.



Today scientific approaches based on modern biology, neuroscience and genomics are replacing nearly a century of purely psychological theories, yielding new approaches to the treatment of mental illnesses." Are you planning to write Insel and accuse him of being "hostile" toward the present structure and practice of psychology? His wording is much more diplomatic and measured than mine, but when the facts are distilled from the prose, he's saying exactly the same thing I am, i.e. psychology doesn't work and is being replaced by more effective, more scientific, methods as we speak. What? How is saying that psychology isn't a science "hostile"? It's a fact and it deserves to be addressed. Are you similarly annoyed at Thomas Insel, sitting director of the NIMH, who in Scientific American has expressed views similar to mine ?:Are you planning to write Insel and accuse him of being "hostile" toward the present structure and practice of psychology? His wording is much more diplomatic and measured than mine, but when the facts are distilled from the prose, he's saying exactly the same thing I am, i.e. psychology doesn't work and is being replaced by more effective, more scientific, methods as we speak.

This leaves untrained "pop-psych" redditors to answer them.

You're really not getting it. Until psychology adopts scientific standards, it's all pop psychology. Do you divide astrology into pop astrology and the "real thing"? Why not? — you've just done it with psychology.

This is very clearly a terrible situation for AskScience, and especially for the individuals asking these questions. This is why the first thing I said is that I didn't care about your opinion of psychology; it's entirely irrelevant to the problem of moderating AskScience and maximizing the quality of the answers. I hope that makes sense to you.

All except that you've contradicted yourself. If you really didn't care what my opinion was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the one hand you say you don't care what my opinion is, on the other you say I may not express that opinion at risk of being banned. Perhaps you should make up your mind.

The reason I decided to write you today is that we have started a new subreddit called /r/AskScienceDiscussion. It is a place to talk about topics relevant to science, but which aren't "science questions" as such. In this subreddit, your comments would be appropriate, so I welcome you to join.

Forget it. Now that I know that Reddit will illegally censor viewpoints it regards as unpopular, I won't be coming back. Freedom of speech isn't about letting people express popular viewpoints, it is about tolerating any viewpoints people care to have.

Please do remember to keep discussions civil

Sir, you are in no position to lecture others about civility. Once a person crosses the line into open censorship, their subsequent use of the word "civil" represents the height of hypocrisy.

if you feel the need to, you may attack psychology as a discipline, not those who study it.

First, my saying "psychologists aren't scientists" names no individual and it correctly points out that ... wait for it ... psychologists are not scientists. And yet, consistent with your bankrupt logic, you think this disparages individual unnamed psychologists.



Second, I can't believe I'm talking to someone who imagines that he honors democratic values. Don't you understand that you can't tune the content of public discussions to suit your own tastes? It seems you don't understand the principles of modern western civilization, and why those principles exist. Again, freedom of speech isn't tested by your acceptance of views you like, it's tested by your willingness to allow the expression of views you personally regard as deplorable. And I shouldn't have to explain this to an educated person.



Also, do you know what would happen in a debate about psychology if it really was a science and I claimed it wasn't? Any competent practitioner could (and would) promptly speak up and falsify my position by citing the central, falsifiable theory that (a) defines psychology and (b) is addressed by, and reinforced by, modern psychological research.



Unfortunately, there is no such theory, and (because the mind is not part of nature) there cannot be.



If I say physics isn't a science, people will laugh, since we're all sitting at computers that serve as mute testimony to the spectacular success of physics as a science.



If I say astrology isn't a science, people will laugh because this isn't a fast-breaking story — astrology was identified as bunk and abandoned as a serious pursuit about the time of Galileo.



But if I say psychology isn't a science, an army of intellectually handicapped people who wasted their parents' money on useless psych degrees come crawling out of the woodwork to (a) insist without evidence that psychology is a science (for a sufficiently relaxed definition of science), and/or (b) demand that I shut up or be banned. Yes, just as you're doing now.



They do this, not because psychology is a science, but because they hope claiming it is will increase the value of their currently-useless college degrees and their social status.



The problem these people face is that it's now common knowledge that psychology is a pseudoscience, an uncontroversial fact recently articulated by the director of the NIMH, so the time-honored strategy of shouting down critics appears to be failing.

If you feel personally attacked, report the offending comments and let the moderators know, so we can take appropriate measures to keep discussions amicable and productive.

That system works fine unless the attack comes from an ignorant, uneducated moderator as in this case — a moderator willing to risk federal prosecution for a clear pattern of civil rights violations.

If you do decide to participate, please let me know so that I can tell the other moderators that I personally invited you, so that they won't judge your comments with prejudice.

First, your narcissism and imagined self-importance are only exceeded by your ignorance. Second, don't worry about that — it's not going to happen. You are (a) in charge of a "public" forum, but (b) are clearly philosophically unprepared for the prospect of open public debate on any controversial topic.



Also, I've had enough debates along these general lines over the past ten years that I don't see the point of any more. When psychologists try to address their field's present standing, they get emotional, they get angry, they complain that by citing scientific evidence I'm not playing fair, or they get frustrated, abandon any pretense of fair play and demand that I be banned from the forum — as you are doing now. Or all of the above. What they don't do is treat the debate as an opportunity to show that psychology is a science, for a simple reason — psychology is not a science.

Thanks for taking the time to read this through - it's a not a short letter, but I felt it was important to address the previous matter before extending the invitation. You may put it up on your website if you like, but I didn't write it for publicity or as a retort - I prefer to keep a low profile and I have an intense distaste for drama or needless debate.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before censoring my contributions to the AskScience forum. In a western democracy, such censorship is illegal, is by definition unacceptable, and is contrary to the values that define modern civilization.



You're obviously not a deep thinker, so to avoid any misunderstanding I'll explain this reply. In your post, you haven't addressed or retracted your original demand that I avoid saying psychology is not a science or be banned, therefore your original censorship demand is still in effect. Further, in asking that I return you've added some new requirements to your list of rules, as though you are director of a stage play rather than moderator of a public forum. And you clearly have no idea how your behavior looks.



So, on that basis, let me spell this out for you — no educated person would volunteer to participate in your dog and pony show. What you describe is not an open public forum in which people can express their views, it is an absurd, staged event masquerading as a science forum. It's not guided by the rules of open discourse, it's guided by people like you, pulling strings behind the scenes like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz.



Do you know what science journals disallow? Almost nothing — if a letter or article libels someone, or is of such poor quality that it's embarrassing, it won't be printed. Everything else is fair discourse, and if truth be known, the more controversy, the better (it makes good science). The result is that scientists, aware of the high editorial standards in force, are willing to read such journals, confident that they're not falling prey to one or another variety of tendentious fiction.



You're not under any pressure to meet that standard, but in exchange, you can't expect people to don your dog collar and obediently march about on your stage.



I'll continue to conceal your true identity, not wishing to produce any more embarrassment than your actions ought to cause you.