Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?

quote:

---

Definition of "soft science": psuedo-science.

---

So the Cognitive Psychology PhD my husband just earned from the #3 Psychology program in the country is actually not a real scientific degree?

It's a good thing that you are not designing surveys.

quote:

---

We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.

---

So, maybe you'd like to critique this study and explain how it is pseudo-science.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-14-2005 02:16 PM

RR,If you want to discuss this, it's probably best to open a new topic.To dismiss these kinds of methodologies out of hand is unwarranted. It may not be obvious how you can scrutinize and improve the validity of surveys, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. The point (as with any technique) is to recognize the limitations, to see how you can try to control them, and to see how that limits the validity and generalizability of your conclusions. By the way, Mod's article talks about some of this stuff.If you're interested, I'd encourage you to open a PNT on it. We can put it in "Is it Science?"

---

okay, I see your point -- some aspects of some world views are not open to being validated (as I had mentioned as well), so yes, utility would be a better word.it implies more of a usefulness in mapping new information between {world view} and {unknowable real world}Consider my post ammended. For myself I care about the utility of my world view, and expect no less of others. Ultimately it comes down to interactions, but our interactions are not only with other people.

You're right, Schraf. I couldn't understand a word of it, so it must be science.

OK, cool. I completely disagree. Fundamentally disagree. And... I will ignore the comment, because I find that discussion much less interesting than the one we're talking about. We can take this discussion elsewhere, if necessary. (hoping it's not necessary) Why? I totally don't have this expectation, but I believe many do. Would you be so kind as to elaborate? I don't see the necessity of this at all; but I do think it's a huge stumbling point.(just realized, ... maybe this is due to your the thought behind your "mapping" statement above. Maybe we have to discuss it after all? awww.. )Furthermore... the way I was using utility above is ... in a global, society-level way. I do think that most people choose world views that are useful for themselves. It may explain experiences that they, and they alone, had. These experiences definitely include feelings and the like. A world view that is not "useful" in the "cultural" or "interpersonal" way I mentioned above still may turn out to be the most "useful" world view for that individual. Now I'm lost again Are you talking about how the earth really is like one organism, and that interaction is not just with people, but with all things? Or are you talking about something else?

I look at it more as a way for an individual to assess the utility (to use ben's observation of a more valid word ) of their own world view more than for others to be involved. I reject the notion of ghosts and spirits because I have not experienced anything like that (although I have had an out-of-body experience). People can recognize elements they reject as nonsense.Certainly at some social level, though, there is a tendency to do this already: we judge certain people to be insane or deluded because of the difference of their world view to that of the majority.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Can you explain what you mean by world view here.Hmm, maybe we are drifting off topic.

If the evidence he studies is physical and isolatable, then it's science.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 02:46 PM

quote:

---

You're right, Schraf. I couldn't understand a word of it, so it must be science.

---

So what you really mean is that you don't know enough about psychology to even begin to understand a psychology research paper, but you are perfectly comfortable calling it "pseudoscience".Got it.

quote:

---

If the evidence he studies is physical and isolatable, then it's science.

---

I don't know what "isolatable" means. It's not a standard scientific term.Data is not physical. Data is information.

your world view is the {map\reference\model} you have of the real world based on your particular understanding of {life the universe and everything}what is real to you is what fits with your world viewwhat is nonsense to you is what does not fit with your world view but it is the difference in world views that leads to ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness when there are extreme differencesthis is like translating languages and the more different the languages the more ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness creeps into the translations.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks.I'm not convinced that I have such a model. Maybe I have something like a map, but it is made of rubber (is stretchy).

I just mean it has to be amenable to the scientific method--control of variables and so on. Only physical things are amenable to the scientific method.This is not to say that a field that is non-scientific is not a useful and worthy field of study. History, for example, is in my opinion very worthy of study, but you can't study it scientifically.Some historian studies a bunch of documents and comes up with a theory about the causes of the rise of communism--a very worthy topic but not scientific.There are things you can do with mathematics, of course--in many fields. But mathematics in itself is not science--it's a tool.So if it's not science it shouldn't be called science.