Hello Jennifer,
Yes, I am familiar with that phrase, although not sure how it applies to this situation. I am the source and you would like me to consider myself? I do not have an employer. Psychology Today provides a forum for articles and discussions. They do not hire me or pay me. They are not the source of this information. I take full responsibility for the content.

Your second point is an interesting discussion. You are correct that in its infancy, psychology was criticized for claiming to be a scientific field and not living up to that assertion by performing quality research. I believe that this question has been put to rest as the rigors of publishing in psychology require randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials.

It would be impossible to publish research in any respectable peer-reviewed psychology journal that was not up to this high standard with concomitant rigorous statistical analyses. These are the standards in psychology. When someone comes up with a new theory in psychology or any other science, for that theory to be of any use, it has to be able to make predictions and those predictions have to be verifiable. If there is no way to disprove a theory, it can explain everything that happens, yet it doesn't predict anything specific that can be tested, it is considered a poor theory.

Finally, the term pseudoscience refers to beliefs that are based mistakenly on scientific method. Psychology is based on scientific method, whether you respect that or not is your choice.
I am trained as a "hard science" PhD in Pharmacology and do understand scientific method. The LOA is not based on scientific method and the erroneous conclusions in metaphysics are based on incorrect scientific assumptions. These assumptions may have seemed reasonable in the 1800s that there was no air around us, only ether and that thoughts only transmit through ether. Perhaps this assumption is correct, however we are not surrounded by ether.
Classifying LOA practice as metaphysical pseudoscience is absolutely appropriate.

It's curious that people who believe in a LOA are critical of those who don't and believe them to be close-minded. I have presented a lot of new data such as the erroneous science and the data showing that acting as though you had already accomplished your goals was detrimental to you doing so. Yet, LOA proponents do not look at this with an open mind and reconsider their belief system. In this way LOA is akin to a faith-based religion, except that religious beliefs can't be disproven.

More Posts