1. #211
    JKDChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,131
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakshow
    Ummm....no. What matters is what can be consistently reproduced in a controlled setting (I mean "controlled" from a perspective of the scientific method, in case any anti-mma "the UFC is a controlled environment, not like teh str33t" people are reading this). Personal anecdotes do not matter, as they are heavily susceptible to personal feelings, selection bias, and lack of any controls in the experiment.
    DING!

    We have a winner!
    Monkey Ninjas! Attack!

  2. #212
    meng_mao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    2,007
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAuslander108
    Psychology is just a branch of philosophy that likes to speak in psuedo-scientific terms.
    /shrug/ as long as you cross train with brain and cog sciences, it's not so bad.
    52 blocks documentary: arrived

    "Joe Lauzon looks like a quiet, Internet guy..." -- Dana White

  3. #213

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    hfx ns ca na da
    Posts
    167
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAuslander108
    Psychology is just a branch of philosophy that likes to speak in psuedo-scientific terms.
    I think behavioural psych would be a soft science. You can put pigeons in a Skinner box and apply rewards/punishments for their behaviour and come up with a repeatable range of statistics, given a large enough sample. It's just not a hard science because a single deviation doesn't disprove a theory, as it would in chemistry or physics.

    I, for one, would like to put peng in a box with a wire wrapped around his pubic bone. A mild shock when he's naughty (omg internal energeez!!!! teh body electric!!). Every now and then throw him a ho-cake for good behaviour.

  4. #214

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    281
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDChick
    DING!

    We have a winner!
    Yeah, that's why they pay me the big bucks. Because I understand all this "science" stuff. :cool:

    Now, if only getting paid the big bucks didn't involve leaving myself no time or energy to get back into serious training. (Working out a couple times a month for fun does not count, in my book.) :icon_sad:

  5. #215
    Shaolinz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    965
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAuslander108
    Psychology is just a branch of philosophy that likes to speak in psuedo-scientific terms.
    For 90% of it I'd agree with you. Thankfully I do experimental psychology, where we can actually do studies. Currently, I'm trying to establish heuristics for video game design ;)

  6. #216
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Understood.

    The irony is that the other 90% is crap by even philosophy standards due to lack of logic.

  7. #217
    Darkpaladin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,193
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Too bad I convinced my brother to switch his major to psych when comp sci wasn't working out for him...
    :google:

    Number of bottles of beer downed by me and my girlfriend within a half hour while playing the Channel 7 "how many times will they say 'snow' game" during the "Blizzard of '06": 3.5 each.

  8. #218
    Shaolinz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    965
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAuslander108
    Understood.

    The irony is that the other 90% is crap by even philosophy standards due to lack of logic.
    Much like peng: They have a theory, then they make a study to affirm their theory. If they don't affirm their theory they make new studies untill they do affirm their theory. I've read through tons of worthless literature with horribly designed studies that only barely show evidence for their conclusion. Ugh.. I hate the rest of my field...

  9. #219
    ARGUMENTUM AD LATINUM DICTIONAIRUM Bullshido Newbie
    Doctor X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,380
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Waves to Freakshow. . . .

    Now if only we could get that clown Kilik to show up. For the rest of you, that guy would last about an hour before various posters would hunt him down and/or the Admins would send him to Trollshido so fast a cliche would happen.

    He likes to spam boards with various pseudoscientific crap--like "Qi Gong is Prehistoric!" My favorite was one where he claimed a video of an "invincible Chi Master" who could not be knocked down if he stood on one-foot and held a cup of tea. I wish I was making it up.

    Right, for the rest, way back the books I recommended to Peng are very good for explaining why investigators have to apply a scientific method. There are different levels of claim here.

    --J.D.

  10. #220

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    38
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm not sure we need to insult philosophy while insulting psych. How about we distinguish academic philosophy from new-age metaphysical crap philosophy?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO