|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is experimental psychology science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Of course you are. You are passing judgement upon a field of study and making claims about it's very nature. Unlike art, whether something is scientific or not isn't really in the eye of the beholder. There are defiably characteristics of the method that are quite specific to science, but for some reason you are ignoring them. The method of inquiry determines if a field is conducted scientifically, not your personal, vague opinion about how many variables are "too many" to control. Does it make testable preditions? Is it falsifiable? Is there a rigorous peer-review system? etc.
quote: Well, by definition, something that is not scientific is less rigorous and is based more upon personal opinion than the scientific method of inquiry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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 quote: Why not? Variables are variables, controls are controls, data is data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I don't really care. The topic of the thread is, "Is experimental psychology science?" You have opined that it is not, I strongly disagree, and I have challenged and questioned you in an effort to get you to provide some specific evidence and examples of actual research psychology showing why you think this. So far, you have talked about everything but. You keep making claim after claim that just show you to not know what you are talking about, such as: "if psychologist want to do science, they'll explore the way the brain works, not how people feel." Well, that's exactly what research psychology does. AND they explore emotions. And you had some kind of strange notion that hostility towards the idea that the mind or behavior has a biological basis was rampant throughout research Psychology based upon your mothers' experience, I guess, yet you had no clue if her Psychology department was clinical or not. I notice that you did not respond to the nice list of mainstream general Psychology journal articles listing Bio/brain/Chem in the title that Zhimbo compiled for you. Here it is:
message #35 Field Biology is not as rigorously controlled as lab Biology, because there are many more variables in nature than in a lab that can't all be controlled for. (nothing close to control "to the max" in the field). Does this mean that Field Biology is not science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
brennakimi writes: and i have to say that you must not be much of an artist if rational analysis isn't sexy to you... some of the most amazing art is mathematically based. not to mention much of artistic analysis follows specific rules. things are aethetically pleasing for very precise reasons. i could analyse a photograph for you to tell you exactly why it is a good one and tell you exactly what makes a bad painting bad. With those formulas in hand, you must be a master. But you won't be much of an academic until you shed that youthful veneer of bombastic certainty backed up, when pressed, by resorts to vulgarity: there are very specific rules about being taken seriously by adults. Perhaps you could tell me the things you claim with the same certainty you say much else--but that would be practicing criticism, not art. All things can be rationally analyzed (productively or otherwise), but rational analysis is not the source of art. Do you think good artists believe that it is, and therefore I must be a bad one? Art history is littered with critics and their schools, each certain they could tell you exactly why some art piece is good or bad; none have had any lasting authority; all would have preferred to be artists. Photography? Please. Much great art is not aesthetically pleasing at all. OTOH, if I didn't think rational analysis was sexy, I wouldn't be here: reason has an aesthetic of its own, one that you are abusing. You suggested that art met the standards for being considered a science as well as psychology does, and my rational analysis told me that was silly, and I said so. Your rationality provided you with a totally uninformed, spiteful remark, and a digression on art criticism, by way of reply. My muse and I have studied your analysis of my art, and we can find no wounds. Now be a good lassie and go throw spitballs at schraf.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
it's not the data but the analysis that's different. psychology is way too subjective.
the temperature of a pond can only be interpretted one way. the mass of a planet can only be interpretted one way. the acceleration as something goes hurtling through space approacting light spoeed can only be interpretted one way. a child who wets his pants can be interpretted a hundred ways. his parents could be abusing him. he could be anxious about school or friends or blah blah. he could have nightmares. he could be acting out. it could be anything. that is why it's not science. just like i was diagnosed with adhd and anxiety disorder and borderline ocd and cronic depression and a bunch of other things as a young child when it's very likely that i could just have nld. it's a very powerful study for what it is a nd what it does, but calling it a science would limit it and having it behave like a science would limit it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i know it's silly to claim art is a science. that's why i said it. and now you're the one spouting vulgarity. and so did she. look. i don't care whether you agree with me or not but that is no reason to treat me like dirt.
fuck you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Brennakimi,
You might take a look at what causes ADHD quote: Do you think it would be all right to suppose that the effect of ritalin on the brain cells of an ADHD child can only be interpreted in one way? In other words: might there be just a bit of hard science involved? Not everything is black and white.
{edited to correct bulleted list} This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Oct-2005 03:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...according to your uninformed personal opinion.
quote: Similarly, if a neuron has fired or not can only be interpreted in one way. The effects that the temperature has on the pond's ecosystem, however, can and are interpreted in a billion different ways.
quote: ...and yet in String theory and Chaos theory, and Quantum Mechanics, we get all sorts of different interpretations from diffeerent Physicists. If it's all so simple and cut and dried, then why aren't all Physicists in complete agreement about everything?
quote: OK, I'll try this again, and maybe you can actually answer the following non-rhetorical, I-really-do-expect-an-answer question this time: What does all of the above have to do with the difference in reaction times of old and young subjects when they are performing a memory task, like, say, remembering random letters both with and without an interruption? Why would a history of childhood pants wetting be a factor in the methodology of this experiment, and invalidate it as science? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2005 10:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You reap what you sow, brennakimi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But linking brain activity and chemicals to behavior...that's... PSYCHOLOGY!!! ...at least it is according to everybody except for Brennakimi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i know what causes add. i've read countless articles about it since DUH DA DUH! they told me i have it. i know bad parenting has nothing to do with it but it could have something to do with bed wetting. try reading. it's a brilliant art. my point is that although my whole family has add i no longer think it is the reason i am the way i am. it never really fit and now i know why. because this fits better.
drugs make it like medicine, which is an "art" not a science... why? cause they are looking for solutions not causes. it's fundamentally different. note art is used here like craft as in a skill. the archaic meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
what? oh please. i've never criticized anyone in this discussion, i only asked you to leave me alone. which you have yet to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
brennakimi writes: i know it's silly to claim art is a science. that's why i said it. and now you're the one spouting vulgarity. and so did she. look. i don't care whether you agree with me or not but that is no reason to treat me like dirt. fuck you. Your offer is very kind, but no thanks. BTW, what was my vulgarity? I make that error sometimes, but it is usually pretty clear (just ask Faith), and I don't think I did so in this instance. I did speak to you like an errant child with the clear intention of annoying you, but even that seemed hardly as good as I got. Guess it worked, though... It is definitely not my intention to treat you badly--for the most part I've enjoyed your posts and have thought well of you since you posted about Zatarains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
brennakimi, I just saw your post asking to be left alone.
Done. This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-19-2005 10:20 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024