Hi there, No, was not hurt by your response, I'm just really puzzled by the arguments you're using. (I suspect, as I said before that there is an irreconcilable difference in the methods and ideas we hold as truth.) Your last reply however did come across as pretty condescending, and although I'm quite sure that wasn't intended, I thought I would bring it to your attention. Now, I am pretty hesitant in responding as I'm aware that the ideas I'm presenting somehow go against some pretty core beliefs, and I'm clearly in the minority in this environment.... but here goes.
Violence, here, is not operationalized as a theoretical construct, which is what you seem to be suggesting? It is operationalized as a number of discrete, measurable, quantifiable and distinct acts, as I stated when I replied to your first question above. This rests on the Law of Parsimony: if an idea or theory rests on a number of other theories, it is rejected as a poorer idea than one the rests on no corroborating theories. This is how we operationalize concepts in psychology. Here is an illustration: when we operationalize something like depression, we don't use a description of what we think depression is (this person has been suffering from low mood for the last six weeks, the mood disturbance is accompanied by changes in appetite and sleep patterns as well as a lack of interest in sex, etc), rather, we give it an operational definition: we make it measurable: this person scored XX on the Beck Depression Inventory, this defines them as depressed. Acts such as hitting, biting, kicking, threatening with a weapon, etc - define what we call violence.
In terms of victimization, numerous studies look at statements given to police, input of a therapist in court-mandated marital therapy, self-statements, witness statements, etc. In couples where the violence is bilateral, generally both partners are considered both victim and perpetrator. Regarding theories from other disciplines, again, we use the law of parsimony: if you can't quantify a theory of violence or victimhood, you cannot falsify it and if you cannot falsify it, you cannot prove it and if you cannot prove it, it has no persuasive scientific value. (This is not to say it has no value, I'll come back to that shortly.)
I prefer the methods of psychological science because they are scientific - they are testable, and falsifiable, and don't rely on politics or ideology. Scientists themselves, of course, as humans are potentially biased, but the scientific method is not. I prefer the scientific method not because claims of psychology are essentially claims mad by an authority, but because they are logical, falsifiable, testable and provable. I evaluate the scientific method as superior because it looks at ideas equally: any idea has to open itself to falsification before it will be taken seriously.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 09:40 pm (UTC)No, was not hurt by your response, I'm just really puzzled by the arguments you're using. (I suspect, as I said before that there is an irreconcilable difference in the methods and ideas we hold as truth.) Your last reply however did come across as pretty condescending, and although I'm quite sure that wasn't intended, I thought I would bring it to your attention. Now, I am pretty hesitant in responding as I'm aware that the ideas I'm presenting somehow go against some pretty core beliefs, and I'm clearly in the minority in this environment.... but here goes.
Violence, here, is not operationalized as a theoretical construct, which is what you seem to be suggesting? It is operationalized as a number of discrete, measurable, quantifiable and distinct acts, as I stated when I replied to your first question above. This rests on the Law of Parsimony: if an idea or theory rests on a number of other theories, it is rejected as a poorer idea than one the rests on no corroborating theories. This is how we operationalize concepts in psychology. Here is an illustration: when we operationalize something like depression, we don't use a description of what we think depression is (this person has been suffering from low mood for the last six weeks, the mood disturbance is accompanied by changes in appetite and sleep patterns as well as a lack of interest in sex, etc), rather, we give it an operational definition: we make it measurable: this person scored XX on the Beck Depression Inventory, this defines them as depressed. Acts such as hitting, biting, kicking, threatening with a weapon, etc - define what we call violence.
In terms of victimization, numerous studies look at statements given to police, input of a therapist in court-mandated marital therapy, self-statements, witness statements, etc. In couples where the violence is bilateral, generally both partners are considered both victim and perpetrator. Regarding theories from other disciplines, again, we use the law of parsimony: if you can't quantify a theory of violence or victimhood, you cannot falsify it and if you cannot falsify it, you cannot prove it and if you cannot prove it, it has no persuasive scientific value. (This is not to say it has no value, I'll come back to that shortly.)
I prefer the methods of psychological science because they are scientific - they are testable, and falsifiable, and don't rely on politics or ideology. Scientists themselves, of course, as humans are potentially biased, but the scientific method is not. I prefer the scientific method not because claims of psychology are essentially claims mad by an authority, but because they are logical, falsifiable, testable and provable. I evaluate the scientific method as superior because it looks at ideas equally: any idea has to open itself to falsification before it will be taken seriously.
(cut off for length, continued below)