Pseudoscience

“Oh, What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

Sir Walter Scott

As our mother always implied while we were growing up with this Sir Walter Scott quote, we don’t know until we know what idea or web we have woven until we are caught in it. The professional licensed psychological professions (teachers, trainers, educators, social work, counselors, psychiatrists, and the medical model), auxiliary professions (law, insurance (malpractice/health), media, Big Business, and finance) and professional organizations (like the APA and AMA) are no different. In this work, we offer our meta-cognitive analysis of what is “pseudoscience” and what is not. We have codified the profession of Healer and Healing (O’Brien, 2024a) and this is our foundational research that has been produced to ensure that the quantitative minds that read it, can start to understand what it is like to be qualitative.

Abstract

Medical Hypothesis recently published an article (McKay & Coreil, 2024) suggesting that an emerging somatic approach to psychological healing called Brainspotting (BSP) can be considered a “pseudoscience” based on standards set by the American Psychological Association (APA). The authors (McKay & Coreil, 2024) attempted to use these standards to nullify BSP’s original hypothesis (Corrigan & Grand, 2013). The field of psychology, including professional associations like the APA, have adapted such standards (e.g., best practices) and measures (e.g., evidence-based) to ensure that consumers are safe from being taken advantage of and are getting something for what they are paying for. This is often based on current interpretations of the latest research presenting in the literature. As people need protection from individual professionals and professions, citizens increasingly need it from industrialized professions, associations, governmental overreach, and corporatized interests. Our recovery-informed work (O’Brien, 2023a) highlights major weaknesses in APA diagnostic categorization of mental health disorders, challenging the basic structure of Western thought and their organizational authority on medical, psychological, legal matters, and professional integrity and moralism. In this work, we explore how their foundational logic or base philosophical argument is flawed.

BSP, as a somatic approach, offers the opportunity to critique quantitative reasoning because a critical analysis is required in the wake of McKay and Coreil’s (2024) and the APA’s opinioned “research” as to what philosophically constitutes a “science”. As the new paradigm of dissociation and recovery-informed care presents in society, our work indicates that addiction has now been defined as dissociation, is transdiagnostic, and that there are several diagnoses that are quantifiable if addiction was accurately defined and respected as transdiagnostic. Our writing here also addresses the systemic issue of unconsciously creating systems of dependence that directly impact civil liberties and the freedom of future generations. In this presentation, we review the underlying philosophical assumptions of quantitative science, reductionistic thought, scientific method, falsification, null hypothesis, placebo effect, Dunning-Kruger effect, medical and psychological models, and Western thought. Our intention in writing such a piece is to offer the qualitative worldview to the quantitative bias that exists in the field, as we believe the McKay and Coreil (2024) article represents. We hope this will encourage conflict resolution between these two seemingly competing and interdependent academic camps and the civil unrest they cause. As a response to McKay and Coreil (2024), we present our integrated doctoral research (O’Brien, 2023a) on the Addiction as Dissociation Model (ADM) (O’Brien, 2023c) in an effort to delineate between the two mindsets and offer the solution of formally creating a new profession of Healers. We address the underlying philosophical assumptions and shortcomings with research methods and designs to justify our logic. We discuss and resolve the debate between quantitative and qualitative “science”, which extends to resolving the ethical and moral debate. As a part of our research, we operationally (medically and psychologically) define the psychological unconscious as the physical body as a foundational tenant of psychology. Here we present this as our “medical hypothesis” because it answers a lot of unanswered philosophical and psychological questions, like who is asking and who is answering the question(s). In general, we address the underlying philosophical assumptions and shortcomings in quantitative research and explain how both areas of research (qualitative/quantitative) could do better at leading public policy and social discretion by combining forces in a mutually interdependent relationship. We explore how both areas of research could do better at leading public policy and social discretion by combining forces in a mutually interdependent relationship. We also provide viable solutions for the reader to consider. Conclusions reached may not be what is wanted, but we believe it is what is needed. Further implications and recommendations are explored. Summaries capture everything if something is done with the knowledge, and nothing at all, especially, if the reader does nothing to apply what has been learned from reading this or their life.

Introduction

Medical Hypothesis recently published an article (McKay & Coreil, 2024) proposing that the foundational hypothesis in Brainspotting (BSP) (Corrigan & Grand, 2013) meets the American Psychological Association’s (APA) standards to be considered a “pseudoscience.” When a “scientifically” definitive article on “what is real” and “what is fake” is published on or about another profession or professionals’ work, particularly in peer-reviewed literature, it is reasonable for readers and customers/consumers of psychology to assume that the standards and methods set by these professions, peer-reviewers, organizations, associations, industries, research, or “the system” are at the very least based on “settled science”, common sense, and are philosophically sound. However, if anything is “settled” in this world it is that only imperfection is perfect. We will show how quantitative standards are often relative, unevenly applied, not particularly philosophically or morally sound, and not necessarily what one thinks of as “scientific”. This is particularly true when applying “science” to human beings or healthcare.

As the basis of “science” is our shared lived experience, quantitative science is qualitatively cold, desperate, and psychopathic. While qualitative science can look angelic and be prophetic, we do need some measure of common sense and decency when dealing with mental health and medical practice. We believe that having a clearer understanding of what healing is could help the world make sense again by knowing what is real and what is fake – and to whom. The “scientific” world we live in now needs more objectivity on what truths exist and not more subjectivity to further prolong a senseless debate that makes doing the business of science a major barrier to performing science – let alone “knowing” what true science is.

Without the ability to perform science, science is not happening. What we currently see in academia culture with gotcha articles like McKay and Coreil (2024) “research” and “science” are a part of a growing trend that is a part of the news cycle and has no little to qualitative scientific exploration occurring other than referencing ethical and legal standards (McKay & Coreil, 2024). Ours has decided to look at Moral-Ethics (O’Brien, 2024b; O’Brien, 2024c). Research can be done scientifically; however, evidence is what mounts over time. This is the measure of the quality of the research. Evidence is what research produces and science is based on that. Dependence on defining what “science” (qualitative/quantitative) is and which science is being listened to and followed, the evidence of our lived experience, is mounting and suggesting that psychology has moved away from quantitative objective realities and towards subjective qualitative truths. For many, this mounting pressure is creating cognitive dissonance over what is real and true. This dissonance is emotional and hopefully can be resolved here for the reader because we explored where truth come from (O’Brien, 2023a).

The prolonged nature of the “scientific” debate may be unconsciously serving a different purpose. Due to professions and their professional organizations’ need for the standardization and industrialization of human care, like the APA, we observe that quantitative standards that use such quantitative reasoning and rational are dangerous, unrealistic, counterintuitive to the goal of psychology and medical models of care, and potentially addictive (O’Brien, 2023a). We aim to redirect the quantitative mindset and what we believe to be philosophically misguided and wrong to restore balance to human consciousness and civilized society. Based on our work (O’Brien, 2023a), we make observations and intuitions based on qualitatively interpretating historical events that are based on our shared lived experience because, in the absence of reasonable expectations, no resolution occurs. As a result, conflict ensues and those who benefit exponentially will continue to do so without any real consequence. However, when consequences are already known, accountability is required so changing the course of our lives and history can happen – if change is what people, systems, and businesses really want, are asking for, and require, then what kind of change do they need (e.g., Short-term or long-term)? No one has to go too far in their memories bank to remember what it was like to want to get back to normal; however, what normal motivations us will differ but why will not?

In the ever-changing world of research and scientific debate, we offer our critical analysis of the field of psychology, medicine, government, and the professions that support them. We offer the integrated findings of our research (O’Brien, 2023a) to help future generations see that “science” was able to reveal truths about the universe and that true “mental illness” prevents the acceptance of truths that need to be revealed. To do this, we must reject, dissent, and spiritually rebel against clinical dogma, psychological sales pitches, quantitative investments, and all that is counterintuitive to the nature of the Healing; therefore, we honor the path of spirituality and qualitative science without rejecting quantitative observations, information, and data.

What we have learned where quantitative reasoning, logic, and desired outcomes are qualitatively coming from. In the name of truth, objectivity wins over bias because subjectivity allows for a critique on the qualitative worldview, we have to identify that logic goes both ways. Our observation is that those professions, the professional organizations they create, the governmental law that makes the standards, and those who benefit from unresolved matters will all continue to do so without much motivation to actually resolve the contributing addiction and dissociative factors (e.g., bodily and psychological regulation). Therefore, they contribute in part and create the conflict in the first place because their underlying philosophy of quantitative science is not sound and many do not know it because the definitions of the words used are incomplete without qualitative wisdom.

The fact is that we are all interdependent and dependent/addicted to resolution not occurring because that is what spices life up. Since chaos is addicting, benefiting from it would be too (O’Brien, 2023a). Benefiting from this exponentially would be dissociative (O’Brien 2023a) and immoral (O’Brien, 2024b; O’Brien, 2024c). Our doctoral work highlights how key psychological terms, definitions, and concepts are conveniently missing from psychological professions, which suggests that there is a pathology to professions, professionals, and professional organizations that needs to be considered (O’Brien, 2023a). The standards they set and intend to follow are often reflective of their level of professional conscious awareness (O’Brien, 2024c), Stage of Change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983), and level of moral development (Kohlberg, 1958). In this work, we will qualitatively investigate how professions meet the diagnostic criteria for “medical necessity” at this point in human history for “significant disorders” – or did they get “disorders” wrong as well (Smith & Tasnadi, 2007)?

With McKay and Coreil’s (2024) presentation, we see an opportunity to settle some classical and philosophical debates (e.g., settling “science”), professional territorial disputes, and moral reasoning with our qualitative leanings, approach, and methods (O’Brien, 2023a). To be successful at this, we know it will involve resolving cognitive dissonance in individuals, professional gatekeeping, societal moral delay, ethical bypass, and existential compromise, which systems like these historically are not likely to acknowledge, admit, or make an effort to resolve (e.g., legal efforts to end: slavery, racism, prejudice, classism, genderism, and intergenerational war). These “science” debate (e.g., what is reality) present barriers to application of science. How much they impact “the system” is depends on their own denial of the philosophical understandings they claim to teach, educate from, and set their expectations for others from. Additionally, they legally require ethical and moral standards to other professions to adhere to but their track record and current actions demonstrate that they do not follow their own standards (O’Brien, 2024c). Through our research efforts (O’Brien, 2023a), the classical “science” debates of conscious and unconscious, real and not real, life and death, here and not, and truth and “fake” has been qualitatively settled because by resolving the addiction choice/disease debate, we can end all debates – if that is what people, professions, and society really want? As a clinical professional, we have the means, measures, and treatments to apply to such diagnosable traits, but yet, healing does not seem to be readily happening because the system is sick, dying, or is being reborn (O’Brien, 2023c; O’Brien, 2024a).

The qualitative, phenomenological, and philosophical (pluralist) perspective is generally an unrecognized area in the literature because dissociation as term has yet to be readily defined or applied in clinical testing (O’Brien, 2023a). However, in clinical practice where advancements in trauma and dissociative memory healing have been made, we see solid strides in experiential, imaginal, and qualitative healing approaches (Van der Kolk, 2014). These are for what they would consider diagnosable “disorders” but with qualitative and philosophical reasoning on quantitative matters, psychology has become an equal contender to “hard science”. Directly healing trauma memory has helped exposed the nature of our subjective experience, exposed diagnostic shortcomings, and provided a template for recovery. As a result, we currently see the unconscious professional relational dynamic as addicted, “diseased”, and abusive (O’Brien, 2023a; O’Brien, 2023c; O’Brien, 2024c). When what is unrecognized in the literature and society become barriers to providing healthcare services, psychology must provide reasonable answers to the problems that quantitative reasoning is creating. As industrialized standards from other professions may be causing more harm than good, there needs to be a common sense check on how and what professions are allowed to do without any consequence, critique, or care (O’Brien, 2024c). This would all apply to the standards they set as well.

In theory, the standards of “peer review” means that some other professional(s) read the submitted work and sees enough intellectual merit for it to be published, but in practice and reality, it is the publisher who decides first if the “science” is appropriate for “their” journal and if it goes forward into a peer review process or not. This is a good example of professional gatekeeping that deserves to be recognized now because the unconscious addictive themes are available if people are ready to see what lies behind the wall of denial that any “professional science” is not directly or indirectly impacted by another professions industry and profit motive. These produce conflicting standards, ethics, and moral imperatives that needs to consider by intellectual and professional communities, particularly ones that set and enforce standards without addressing their own lack of compliance and competence. We have addressed other examples of gatekeeping in the field, particularly on diagnostic privilege, and state it here because we find that the standards in the therapeutic process implicitly negate the healing process (O’Brien, 2023c; O’Brien, 2024c). This is important to us because Healing is what we are doing here because we are a Healer, which we see as distinct from psychology because what psychology has been reduced to is now industrialized, mechanic, and quantitative (O’Brien, 2024a).

Knowing what has historically been done to anyone who has been labeled as “other”, “pseudo”, or “fake”, any accusation of falsehood should also be checked by the benevolence of the authors, the publisher, and their claims – but also the professional system they represent and come from. As if being “educated” was the same as being “trained”, any academic worth their educational integrity can see the quantitative academic forest through the metaphysical qualitative trees. As we continue our post-doctoral research, we have our doubts based on the publishing of such an article, which is considered “scientific research” in a medical journal. What we see is the evidence of qualitative science not being followed because it is emotionally inconvenient, threatens careers, and could influence stock market portfolios.

Philosophically sound arguments are required by society’s litigious minds, but in our professionally humbled opinion, what is commonly known as “settled science” needs a historical review and critical analysis because there is enough misinformation presenting publicly that suggests that the word “science” is subjective at best. Additionally, what our research has been identifying (O’Brien, 2023a) is worth highlighting as a counterargument because it speaks to advances in psychology and philosophy that the quantitative minds should reconsider how they are labeling others and disrespecting others because the answers to life’s big questions can be found, once someone asks the “right” questions. Ultimately, this limits their authority on science, research, and their scope of practice (e.g., authority, power, and control).

This speaks to subjective reality and which “science” we follow depends upon who the observer is and who they claim the observed to be; but together, we can gain the necessary definitions needed to know all of life’s big answers without having to validate, measure, or confirm our own existence. Despite the hope that the quantitative reasoning would see the light of day through their pessimistic nihilism, we will argue that another qualitative profession is needed all-together to help bridge the gap and resolve this all too common misinformed and ancient debates between quantitative worth/ethical responsibility and qualitative value/moral imperatives. We believe that settling these debates will help humanity take the next clinical step in human development and healing our shared unresolved trauma and our/the addiction to dissociative means (O’Brien, 2023a; O’Brien, 2024c). We also see that we need to honor how future generations will interpret our current ethics and moral abilities as a species and society.

What is presenting in the literature and in the field of clinical practice, using McKay and Coreil (2024) as an example, violates common sense sensibilities and eventually, our inalienable civil liberties and rights as citizens of sovereign nations. When we all have quantitatively and qualitatively lived long enough to know that we intellectually truly know nothing, then we must defer to our past to look for answers or themes so we can regain our lost identities, selves, and “sanity”. Not everyone has that ability to do this for different reasons that will be explored here, but our evidence-based, research-informed, and common sense approach (O’Brien, 2023a) resolved the “choice/disease” debate of addiction and we would like to apply our qualitative thinking and reasoning to the eternal quantitative and qualitative research debate. This ancient debate is also a manifestation of the ethical/religious/reality and moral/spiritual/supernatural debate, so we address that here as well. What we can promise now is that it may not be comfortable and may be confusing for the reader, but what the reader (and their professional identity) will experience is indicative of where they are at in their own healing process or Stage of Change (e.g., Prochaska’s transtheoretical model) (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) and not necessarily the writer’s lack of scientific rigor. We state this now because we have been here before and know what we offer is an important growth edge for those (re)establishing recovery, health, and healing. However, we feel the need to remind the reader that killing the massager has not worked out well for them historically because martyrs are made, not found.

As we are independent research organization, we are protective of your information and our own.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE for FREE by signing up for our Addiction as Dissociation Class.

Consider signing up for our newsletter HERE to follow our work and engage with our services.