Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is experimental psychology science?
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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 107 (252957)
10-19-2005 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by macaroniandcheese
10-18-2005 4:28 PM


quote:
i'm not criticizing.
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:
you're getting your panties in a bunch because you assume that i think that anything that isn't science is less provable or less valuable or some other bullshit.
Well, by definition, something that is not scientific is less rigorous and is based more upon personal opinion than the scientific method of inquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-18-2005 4:28 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 107 (252958)
10-19-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by robinrohan
10-19-2005 1:02 AM


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
quote:
It's not the same thing.
Why not?
Variables are variables, controls are controls, data is data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by robinrohan, posted 10-19-2005 1:02 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 9:39 AM nator has replied
 Message 94 by robinrohan, posted 10-19-2005 10:55 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 107 (252964)
10-19-2005 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by macaroniandcheese
10-18-2005 6:43 PM


quote:
oh yes and 'behaviouralism' is a school of political science
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-18-2005 6:43 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 80 of 107 (252984)
10-19-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by macaroniandcheese
10-18-2005 4:24 PM


Re: Hard science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-18-2005 4:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 9:42 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 81 of 107 (252991)
10-19-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
10-19-2005 7:18 AM


Re: Hard science.
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.

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 83 by Parasomnium, posted 10-19-2005 9:58 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 84 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 10:06 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 82 of 107 (252995)
10-19-2005 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Omnivorous
10-19-2005 9:18 AM


Re: Hard science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2005 9:18 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 10:08 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 89 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2005 10:16 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 83 of 107 (253003)
10-19-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by macaroniandcheese
10-19-2005 9:39 AM


Re: Hard science.
Brennakimi,
You might take a look at what causes ADHD
quote:
Heredity
ADHD tends to run in families, which means that genes may play a role. Most children with ADHD have at least one family member with the disorder.
Changes in Brain Function
Studies show that the brains of children with ADHD may function differently than those of other children. These children may have an imbalance of chemicals in the brain that help to regulate behavior.
What Does NOT Cause ADHD
  • Poor parenting
  • Family problems
  • Bad teachers
  • Ineffective schools
  • Too much television
  • Refined sugar
  • Food allergies
A child with ADHD may find it harder to deal with home or classroom stresses than other children, but these things do NOT cause ADHD.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 9:39 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 10:11 AM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 87 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 10:14 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 107 (253006)
10-19-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by macaroniandcheese
10-19-2005 9:39 AM


Re: Hard science.
quote:
it's not the data but the analysis that's different. psychology is way too subjective.
...according to your uninformed personal opinion.
quote:
the temperature of a pond can only be interpretted one way.
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:
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.
...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:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 9:39 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 10:20 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 107 (253007)
10-19-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by macaroniandcheese
10-19-2005 9:42 AM


Re: Hard science.
quote:
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.
You reap what you sow, brennakimi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 9:42 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 10:16 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 107 (253008)
10-19-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Parasomnium
10-19-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Hard science.
quote:
Changes in Brain Function
Studies show that the brains of children with ADHD may function differently than those of other children. These children may have an imbalance of chemicals in the brain that help to regulate behavior.
But linking brain activity and chemicals to behavior...that's...
PSYCHOLOGY!!!
...at least it is according to everybody except for Brennakimi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Parasomnium, posted 10-19-2005 9:58 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 87 of 107 (253009)
10-19-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Parasomnium
10-19-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Hard science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Parasomnium, posted 10-19-2005 9:58 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Parasomnium, posted 10-19-2005 10:43 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 88 of 107 (253010)
10-19-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nator
10-19-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Hard science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 10:08 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 8:28 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 89 of 107 (253011)
10-19-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by macaroniandcheese
10-19-2005 9:42 AM


Re: Hard science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 9:42 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2005 10:19 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 90 of 107 (253012)
10-19-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Omnivorous
10-19-2005 10:16 AM


Re: Hard science.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2005 10:16 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2005 10:22 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024