|
Author
|
Topic: Is experimental psychology science?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 13 of 107 (251992)
10-15-2005 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
10-15-2005 2:24 AM
|
|
So, is a reaction time (the time it takes for a subject to react to a sensory stimulous) "physical"? Yes, it's physical. What's not physical: human motivations, feelings, ideas about morality, etc.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by nator, posted 10-15-2005 2:24 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 28 of 107 (252141)
10-16-2005 10:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Zhimbo
10-15-2005 5:01 PM
|
|
Pseudo-science
So, any research that deals with motivations, feelings, or "ideas about morality" is, necessarily, pseudo-science? Is that your claim? pseudo-science means a study that is not scientific but which pretends to be scientific. There are fields of study that are not scientific, but are nonetheless valuable, and do not pretend to be scientific. In such fields (for example, the study of history), there is less certainty about conclusions, but just because there is less certainy, this does not mean that the conclusions are not worthy or are not taken seriously, or that conclusions are not acted upon in making decisions. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-16-2005 09:15 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Zhimbo, posted 10-15-2005 5:01 PM | | Zhimbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 12:57 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Human motivations, feelings, and ideas about morality have effects that can be observed in the physical world (the actual behavior of the individual as well as their self-descriptions). That seems to be all that is necessary to be able to be investigated through the scientific method. There's a problem here. Just becuase a person acts a certain way, this does not necessarily correspond to some definite inner feeling. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 5:14 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by nwr, posted 10-16-2005 10:33 AM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2005 1:13 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 33 of 107 (252181)
10-16-2005 1:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by Zhimbo
10-16-2005 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: Pseudo-science
So, any research that deals with motivations, feelings, or "ideas about morality" is, necessarily, pseudo-science? Is that your claim? Is that your claim? Yes, or no? Only if pretends to be scientific.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 12:57 PM | | Zhimbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 1:54 PM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 37 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 2:31 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 38 of 107 (252205)
10-16-2005 3:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by Zhimbo
10-16-2005 2:31 PM
|
|
Re: Pseudo-science
If, instead, you think you need more information before dismissing this as pseudoscience, then you need to retract your claims as you've stated them I retract them. You're right; I'm wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Zhimbo, posted 10-16-2005 2:31 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 76 of 107 (252930)
10-19-2005 1:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
10-18-2005 10:51 PM
|
|
Re: Hard science.
Quantum theory is all about unpredictability. Mutations are completely unpredictable, yet fundamental to evolutionary theory. Meteorologists can only speak in percentages, and are often wrong It's not the same thing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by nator, posted 10-18-2005 10:51 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 7:18 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 94 of 107 (253021)
10-19-2005 10:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
10-19-2005 7:18 AM
|
|
Re: Hard science.
Variables are variables, controls are controls, data is data The "uncertainty" in quantum mechanics results from a mathematical necessity having to do, I believe, with something called Planck's Constant. There's no problem in regard to scientific method in quantum mechanics. In Psychology, matters are somewhat different. We are not talking about mathematical necessities when we speak of the difficulty of controlling variables. It's a practical matter. However, originally, on the other thread, what I was saying was that "soft science" is not science. So I would say now, having learned a little more, that to the extent that psychology uses soft science, it is not a science. To the extent that psychology uses hard science (isolatable physical evidence --studies of some part of the brain, for example), then it's science. This is not to say that soft science is not valuable. It may be very valuabe. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-19-2005 10:03 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 7:18 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 9:16 AM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 98 by Zhimbo, posted 10-20-2005 3:08 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 99 of 107 (253445)
10-20-2005 3:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by Zhimbo
10-20-2005 3:08 PM
|
|
Re: Hard science.
The groups of subjects were "controls" and people with brain damage to the amygdala. The abstract looked to me like there was physical evidence that had been isolated properly so that the scientific method could be used. When I get a chance, I am going to study the example that Schraf provided and see if I can come up with something more definite and knowledgable to say. So far my ideas have been rather vague. ABE: maybe I'll learn something. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-20-2005 02:19 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by Zhimbo, posted 10-20-2005 3:08 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 7:19 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 103 of 107 (254745)
10-25-2005 2:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
10-20-2005 7:19 PM
|
|
Re: Hard science.
After reading each story in the booklet, the participants wrote what they remembered about the event. If they did not remember it, they were instructed to write, "I do not remember this." In two follow-up interviews, we told the participants that we were interested in examining how much detail they could remember and how their memories compared with those of their relative. The event paragraphs were not read to them verbatim, but rather parts were provided as retrieval cues. The participants recalled something about 49 of the 72 true events (68 percent) immediately after the initial reading of the booklet and also in each of the two follow-up interviews. After reading the booklet, seven of the 24 participants (29 percent) remembered either partially or fully the false event constructed for them, and in the two follow-up interviews six participants (25 percent) continued to claim that they remembered the fictitious event. This is complicated because the experiment has to do with implanting false memories. The question I have about this survey method is our inability to know whether or not the participants are telling the truth. In this case, we have some participants remembering a false memory that had been suggested to them. But they might not be actually "remembering" this pseudo-memory. They might be consciously pretending to falsely remember it, which is not the same thing as actually falsely remembering it. The recounts of court cases at the beginning of the article tells me there are a lot of quack psychiatrists out there who claim to be doing something scientific. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-25-2005 01:37 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 7:19 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2