Psychology;

Psychology depends from a mathematical anchor, just like many other fields of analysis draw a mystical infallibility from Computer Programs.

Those proofs that depend from Correlation:

Correlation does not prove causality. The Tobacco industry can be relied upon to wake anew to the truth of it for many years to come. Despite this, Causality so commonly demonstrates correlation that true randomness is currently impossible for computer programs. If a phenomenon correlates to a statistical event or class of actions, then psychology commonly says that one causes the other, with specific qualifications.

Those proofs that depend from null hypothesis testing.

Take 72 nubile non-pubescent 10 - 11 year olds, and 72 17 - 18 years olds, and distribute them randomly into control and experimental groups. By all means, execute the selective process of female gender on the group so that the hypothesis (to follow,) may be rigorously verified by physical presence of the hymen. Then test the correct null hypothesis that PROVES "nubile non-pubescent individuals are virgins."

ANY corrections necessary to my methodology, indict the divine reliability of "Null-hypothesis testing."

Statistics itself depends on the correctness of the fundamental statement, "The Normal distribution applies." For example, why SHOULD the NORMAL distribution, rather than a Square, a Skewed, a Poussin or a Bi-modal distribution apply to the expected outcomes from repeatedly rolling 32 6-sided dice?

I am a math student to this day, and I revere what can be built syllogisticly from random sampling, once the correctly applicable distribution has been ascertained. The math is not at fault.

Those proofs that depend from analysis:

There remains the discussion of Freud and his progeny. Freud himself had many accusations that put his subject on the defensive. "You are Oedipal," "you are (latently) Homosexual," "you have unresolved guilt about Universal Masturbation," "you are Passive aggressive," "you haven't faced your self-flagellating self-loathing," or "you are Orally fixated," are several. IF I had an adequate definition for "oral fixation," I could authoritatively say that "Freud had an oral fixation." Until then, "...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I can _prove_ I am not passive aggressive. I am overtly or aggressively aggressive. It's easier to be violent than to disprove the bland assertion that I am passively aggressive. I submit that, in large numbers, PhD Psychologists are "passively aggressive." They just don't noise it about.

Once a person is sufficiently on the defensive, the shrink reliably shows that this has the "Je ne sais quoi," of normality, and all problems proceed from childhood abuse. It's common enough they can't miss. Exceptions to the rule cover any exceptions to the rule. Once "normal," a person is responsible for paying the shrink while he labors to "break through," like a Scientologist being "clear." If a person is very logical, and learns to cope well, he can be released back into the wild, with only Chiropractic tune-ups thereafter.

A special exception is the Religiously convicted. If one has faith in God, it becomes a superstitious lability. Under these circumstances, "they," treat the patient like a willful Academic rival who may become violent. The rule is "Don't challenge the irrational (religious) fantasy," or he _will_ decompensate, become violent and lose all hope of coping with reality. All future interactions become subject to the definition of passive aggressive.

In closing, the TRULY ABUSED can be assisted in only one way: "What lie can I tell this patient so that he will permanently feel better?"

All real coping skills and assistance are rendered in this framework, or they commit you involuntarily.