Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology

There are two main branches of psychology. Individuals can either conduct research or apply it. The former, consists of sub-branches that explore a specific portion of behavior or cognition. For example, bio-psychologists study the relationship between biology and behavior (i.e. how enzymes help modulate movement), cognitive psychologists explore how information is processed (i.e. how a cognitive bias can influence decision-making). The latter is in charge of applying said information. For example, a cognitive psychologist might work on creating tests that cannot produce cognitive biases in an individual or a clinical psychologist can provide a type of therapy that has empirical support. Nevertheless, it seems that there is a disconnection between psychologists who conduct research and those who apply it. The purpose of this essay is to focus on this separation from a clinical perspective. However, before starting, it is important to note why this topic is of critical importance.

One of them is the increase in number of pseudo-scientific therapies such as neuro-linguistic programming and the rage reduction therapy. This means that uniformed therapists can provide something that eventually harms the patients instead of relying in evidence-based treatments. In addition, surveys reveal that clinical therapists rely more heavily in subjectivity and intuition rather than what has been mentioned before. This means that therapists might be influenced by other things such as cognitive biases, etc., which can affect the patient in a negative manner.  

Moreover, not only can the therapist be uniformed, but the patient too. If he hears in the media or learns in academia, which are places that sometimes spread information without double checking if it is scientific valid, he could, instead of receiving treatment from a certified therapists, search for harmful treatments or ones that are not effective. 

     Additionally, the author talks about three specific ways in which pseudo-scientific treatments can have negative consequences. One of them, and the most obvious, is that it can be harmful. This is best exemplified by the case of a ten-year-old from Colorado, Candace Newmaker, who died accidentally from a type of rebirth therapy. In this form of pseudo-therapy, Candace was wrapped from head to toe and surrounded by pillows. Moreover, she screamed for help, since she could not breathe, but her cries were ignored; she died after a 70-minute-long session. The second would be related to a concept known as opportunity cost. This is when available resources that belong to the patient as misused in pseudo-therapies. For example, when an individual has limited time and money to receive mental health, but instead he or she opts to get treatment, unknowingly, from a quack doctor. The third way in which it could have negative consequences would be by damaging the foundations of science.

This could be explained in two ways. The first one would be that it damages the public's perception of the scientific basis for clinical psychology. In other words, individuals could be less likely to search for mental help or they could be less likely to trust their therapist. The second way would be by affecting prospective psychologists. In other words, students could be lazy in the search for scientific truth (i.e. turning a blind eye for the practitioners-scientists gap and pursuing, unknowingly, pseudoscience). 

     It is important to note that there are indicators that separate what is science and what is not. One of them is that the pseudoscience relies heavily in ad hoc hypotheses. These are hypotheses that are imposed on a theory that has holes. An example of this is seen in the not a true Scotsman fallacy. In other words, if someone reads a research paper that states that rebirth therapy is not effective, the person could claim that whoever conducted the session was not a true rebirth therapist. Another indicator is self-correction. Science is in constant change and if a field has remained stagnant, it may point towards a lack of validity. This is clearly shown in astrology, which is a field that has not had any advancements in terms of understanding personality. On the other hand, the sub-branch in psychology of development and personality had been in constant change and it adapts itself every time a researcher discovers new findings.  

     A foundation in science, made by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, is the ability to falsify hypothesis. This is why scientists do not try to confirm their theory, but rather disprove it. A beautiful example of why this is a central tenant of science is described in the story of the black swan. For a long time, Europeans thought that swans were only white and if they wanted to test this, the only thing they had to do would be to collect a sample of swans. Nevertheless, since there were only white swans in Europe, people would only find a sample of the population that confirmed their theory. This changed when Australia was discovered alongside black swans. This means that it did not matter how much researchers confirmed their hypothesis, only one piece of evidence is needed to disprove it. In addition, to prove a hypothesis, it is necessary to test the whole population, but sometimes this is impossible either because of time/financial constraints or researchers are unaware of whom the whole population is.  

The last indicator that is going to be mentioned here is a fallacy known as the burden of proof, however, it is important to mention that there are many others signals. Burden of proof is when the person who presents the claim does not support it, but rather asks other individuals to provide evidence that contradicts their assertion. It is important to be aware of this since some hypotheses cannot be tested (i.e. someone is healed because God decided to). 

     The practitioner-scientist gap supports the idea that several clinical psychologists tend to rely on their own judgments rather than conducting a literature review. However, there is not a positive relationship between years of experience, which is one of the reasons why therapists depend on themselves, and effectiveness or the validity in the therapy conducted. For example, a study found that a comparison between seasoned clinicians and individuals who just started in the field, who conducted the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) yielded as a result no difference between these two groups. On the other hand, other studies have shown that there has been an inverse relationship between experience and validity since new therapists are trained with the most accurate and up to date-information, while veterans tend to use past information. 

In conclusion, there are differences that separate science and pseudo-science such as the ability to test a hypothesis in order to falsify it. It is important to be aware of what constitutes the pseudo-science since there could be negative implications. These reasons range from harming the patient to wasting his or her resources. Moreover, there are indicators people can use in order to identify what is science and what is not such the usage of the true Scotsman and burden of proof fallacies.