(cache) BatmanPlayingMetalがPsychology and sociology aren't sciences because they use surveys and aren't falsifiable and here's a history journal which isn't science therefore psychology and sociology aren't science. Also, string theory isn't physics.について記入したコメント

Psychology and sociology aren't sciences because they use surveys and aren't falsifiable and here's a history journal which isn't science therefore psychology and sociology aren't science. Also, string theory isn't physics. (np.reddit.com)

mrsamsa が 13日前投稿

トップ新着論争中古い順 Q&A

あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]BatmanPlayingMetal -8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 13日前* (26子コメント)

The argument the article made is calling out science for producing non-empirical claims about the causes of fundamentalist extremism. This only happens if you broadly capture psychology and sociology papers as science. It is these studies that are often lacking empiricism and quantification. The moment you draw the line at science being strictly empirical all of these problems science has addressing the issue vanish. Science is the wrong place to be answering these questions but what we do know is that there is a direct correlation between superstition, ignorance of science and the tenants of belief that fundamentalist extremist hold. You simply can't have a scientific view of earth and human origins that agree with fundamentalism. Science has a track record of putting superstition to bed and arming people with demonstrable ways to show how much superstition is wrong. The article is a postmodern conflation of sociology and psychology to pure science which is why it comes up with its criticism of non-empiricism. As Wolfgang Pauli said about falsification and not being able to do it. It isn't right and its not even wrong

Just looking over the threads here in this subreddit confirms my point. Just look at the amount of stuff being criticized for not being scientific or misrepresenting science because they are being asked to show fMRIs with their psychology papers.

[–]Neurokeen 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 13日前 (21子コメント)

[+]BatmanPlayingMetal スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 13日前 (20子コメント)

[–]Neurokeen 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 13日前 (16子コメント)

[–]BatmanPlayingMetal -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 13日前 (15子コメント)

In science a theory is also a fact. For example the theory of evolution is also a fact. Paternity testing is a theory, but also a fact. So being theory-laden is no obstacle to be an empirical fact in science.

Maths alone isn't empirical, but when we use axioms that are tied to facts, then really we are quantitatively describing something that is qualitative. Applied maths is a language which uses rules of logical, including probabilities, but in science the maths is tied back into the empirical.. For example, statistical testing tells us there is say an 1 in 16 billion chance of the daddy being someone else. This is just a tool that we then convert into empirical statement. The chance of the person not being the daddy is so tiny, we reject it. They are the daddy.

Stats can come up with all sorts of dilemmas. There are no 1/2 people for example (0.5% of an individual for example). No one is in state of their chromosomes sex being 99% male one minute and 1% female the next.

You take the statistics and the confidence it gives you in that your conclusion didn't occur by random chance alone AND you can also derive the objectivity through the confidence.

Paternity testing gets it right and is 100% empirical. Each part can be broken down into something you can get your hands on and measure.

[–]mrsamsa[S] 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 13日前 (0子コメント)

In science a theory is also a fact. For example the theory of evolution is also a fact.

Holy fuck, how can you get this so wrong?

No, theories are not facts in science. There are scientific theories and scientific facts, they are separate kinds of things. Facts are observations or data points, they are things we can't deny without having to entertain the possibility that all observable reality is a trick. Scientific theories are the explanatory frameworks that account for facts, laws, other theories, etc.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory because there is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They aren't the same thing. The fact of evolution is basically that organisms change over time. We know this because we observe it happening. The theory of evolution is the framework that includes things like natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

Here is one of the best creationist-debunking sites explaining that the idea you're proposing is one common to creationists, and then explaining why it's wrong:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

[–]Neurokeen 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 13日前* (7子コメント)

[–]BatmanPlayingMetal -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 13日前 (6子コメント)

[–]Neurokeen 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 13日前* (5子コメント)

[–]BatmanPlayingMetal -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 13日前* (4子コメント)

[–]mrsamsa[S] 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 13日前 (3子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]IBlameHisFather 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 13日前 (5子コメント)

[–]mrsamsa[S] 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 13日前 (4子コメント)

[–]InOranAsElsewhere 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 13日前 (3子コメント)

[–]mrsamsa[S] 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 13日前 (2子コメント)

[–]InOranAsElsewhere 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 13日前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]IBlameHisFather 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 13日前 (2子コメント)

[–]BatmanPlayingMetal -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 13日前 (1子コメント)

[–]IBlameHisFather 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 13日前 (0子コメント)

[–]chowdahdog 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 13日前 (1子コメント)

[–]BatmanPlayingMetal -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 13日前 (0子コメント)

[–]mrsamsa[S] 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 13日前* (0子コメント)

The argument the article made is calling out science for producing non-empirical claims about the causes of fundamentalist extremism.

The article wasn't about calling out science for producing non-empirical claims. It was calling it out for making claims that weren't supported by the evidence.

This only happens if you broadly capture psychology and sociology papers as science. It is these studies that are often lacking empiricism and quantification.

Can you support this claim?

The moment you draw the line at science being strictly empirical all of these problems science has addressing the issue vanish.

Except psychology and sociology are undeniably empirical.

You simply can't have a scientific view of earth and human origins that agree with fundamentalism.

How do you explain scientists who are fundamentalists?

Science has a track record of putting superstition to bed and arming people with demonstrable ways to show how much superstition is wrong.

Can you name any of these "records"?

The article is a postmodern conflation of sociology and psychology to pure science which is why it comes up with its criticism of non-empiricism. As Wolfgang Pauli said about falsification and not being able to do it. It isn't right and its not even wrong

Haha I love that you still refuse to look up what the term postmodern means.

Just looking over the threads here in this subreddit confirms my point. Just look at the amount of stuff being criticized for not being scientific or misrepresenting science because they are being asked to show fMRIs with their psychology papers.

You're still not understanding this science thing.

π Rendered by PID 16124 on app-141 at 2016-04-04 05:08:17.713340+00:00 running 26b0b45 country code: jp.

badpsychology

Rules

Related subs

調停者