Irrigation has adopted the scientific mode. However, from a strictly scientific point of view, it has not been able to meet the requirements of true science.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 2:19
I don't have faith/trust in your religion/psychobabble, I'll ignore anything and everything you have to say, NATURALLY.
RETARD. Retarded little crybaby.
"WAAAAAAAAAAAA! You don't trust my nonsence! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It's soooooo well thought out! WAAAAAAAAAA! People have been working on it for decades! WAAAAAA!".
That's what you sound like.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 2:26
Hey, moot. Jose' told me what you bought in Mexico. You're pretty hilarious. So, how was she? Poor little thing.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 2:41
>>3 e'
What is this, 1982? Get a real fucking keymap already.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 3:16
>>2
You have shit sense of humour. Are you ASSBURGERS
Besides, He couldn't keep his bitching in the original thread, namely: http://dis.4chan.org/read/sci/1212346912
Because -I- pointed out that you need to have faith and trust in your psychologist for their help to be effective, and he started trolling insane. Look, the first threads on sci/math are all because I brought up the legitimate argument of needinf faith for psychology, and he went nuts. For that matter, why is there -anything- about religion on the sci/math board?
Where's my report button for the text boards?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 3:47
>>6
Incorrect about OP, and you don't need faith and trust in the religious sense, so why even bring it up? Also, do you know of the distinction between psychologists and what psychiatrists? The crucial thing is that psychiatrists are medical doctors and are permitted to perscribe medicine.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 3:50
Because without trust and faith, you're just wasting time with either the church, or the psychologist. You won't follow the advise of the one, or the demands of the other.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 3:56
Sorry, I didn't wrap up my post in >>8. There would neither be religion or psychology if people thought both were insane. It's because we trust and have faith in priests and psychologists that we bring them our problems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 4:06
>>9
OK I don't dispute what you mean there, but I don't take a usage of the word "faith" in one sense and then impute religious significance to all usages of the word. I mean we put "faith" in money's usefulness, we put "faith" in our shoes to cover our feet, we put "faith" in a doctor to be helpful in nature, etc. I prefer the word "confidence" these instances.
Then why did he go batshit in a thread that contains the name: Psyychology: Science or religion? My choine of words was approite to the thread, and so were my arguments.
Horrible things happen to people when they put their trust and faith, or confidence, in things they know nothing about. Doctors, lawyers, shoddy-fucking-boats. Russian rockets, politicians, holy ghosts.
Psychology is no safer than anything else. If you don't trust it, if you don't have faith, if you don't have confidence that it will help you, then it's no better than voodoo, and you might even make things worse by trying to follow advice you don't trust, and that is what started the internet troll-fight.
Psycholo-fag turned into a fucking religious-crusader over that argument.
>>11
"Psychology is no safer than anything else. If you don't trust it, if you don't have faith, if you don't have confidence that it will help you, then it's no better than voodoo"
That's not true, that is, your statement is too general. There are treatments that are helpful and have been shown to be helpful in academic study, and there are treatments that are quackery no matter how much "faith" you might have in them. You can't help a paranoid schizophrenic in any clinically meaningful way with "get rolled in a rug" therapy, no matter how much "faith" abounds. Some guy died that way.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 23:56
Also, by "confidence" we mean statistically calculated, not merely intuition.
If psychology = religion because you have to have "faith" in the psychologist, then pretty much any education at any level = religion because you have to have faith in the textbooks.
You're grossly misusing the word "faith," because it is NOT a true synonym of "confidence," though in colloquial English we may treat it at such. Faith is belief without evidence, on the merit of the argument alone, without empirical justification. Religious people believe in the existence of the soul on faith. Psychologists believe in the existence of Schizophrenia based on empirical evidence including firsthand observation, fMRI scans, postmortem brain dissection, PPI startle deficits, etc... That's not religious faith.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-07 11:19
You have to have faith, because you generally have difficulty doing background checks on your doctor from inside the psyche-ward, dumbasses.
Seriously, how can brains make you so fucking stupid?
Mr. Fuckwit, if you don't stop attacking the language barrier and start understanding the basics of being a human being, you'll be doomed to predictable relationships for the rest of your life. Yes, is has the behavior of a science, except for where it guarantees nothing. A science works because it works.
Hahaha, butthurt that you can't manipulate your bullshit past anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of linguistics? BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
So, psychology guarantees the same results for everyone?
Oh, wait. No, it doesn't.
Math generates predictable results. Chemistry generates predictable results. Psychology does not. It's barely able to make predictions on how people behave(I qualified the statement. Get angry if you're a psycho, I don't care.). Ask 100 people the same question, and you might get 100 different answers. Very unlikely, but it can happen.
Just because you can dress it up as a science, doesn't mean it's there yet.
If chemistry didn't work, then why study it? duh...
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 18:34
>>21 So, psychology guarantees the same results for everyone?
Oh, wait. No, it doesn't.
Neither does medicine. Physics, chemistry, and biology don't give the same results under all circumstances either.
I agree with the general point you're trying to make, but that's just disingenuous.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 18:47
>>21
Math isn't even a science, though. It's a self-contained logic, as it explores consequences of assumption. It starts with a set of assumptions we call axioms, and then discovers consequences that we call theorems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-11 1:02
>>21
Congratulations on demonstrating you've never read a single scholarly psychology article and possibly never a single scholarly article.
Cognitive psychology can get highly consistent results in experimentation done with rigorous controls. The conclusions drawn from these results may vary greatly (see the systems vs. processing debate) but that is the same with every field. "Asking a person a question" is hardly an example of experimentation. Room for variation exists in the reception of the question, the processing of the question, the output of the question, and the reception of that output by a researcher.
Parts of psychology research are on the outer limits of what can be considered "pure" enough to be science, but other parts like the aforementioned cognitive psychology are quite scientific if not as pleasantly quantifiable as chemistry and physics. However, the publications themselves are often the first to point out the generalizable limits of their results.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-12 0:21
science = faith in evidence
religion = faith in god
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-12 13:09
>>24
Meh. The vast majority of psychology "experiments" consist of taking a bunch of toddlers, having them watch cartoons, and then observing their behavior through a one-way mirror.
"Look at little Billy there. I think he feels aggressive. Don't you think he feels aggressive? Do you think I should put down a '6' on the aggression scale for him?" "Put down an '8,' he's curling his upper lip."
Even better are the "meta-analysis" papers, which consist of statistical analysis of prior papers' statistical analyses. But of course the "researcher," if that is the word I want, can't analyze all the papers in the world. He will have to pick and choose. Which ones will he analyze? The ones that support the position he's already chosen, of course! Can you say "cherry-picking," boys and girls?
It's a crock of shit from top to bottom and end to end. It's a racket. The "social sciences" are about as scientific as fortunetelling.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-12 13:12
>>26
p.s. I used to have a job working for a company that dealt in microfilmed copies of doctoral dissertations and other scholarly papers. I have read thousands of them. I'm pretty sure I've read more Ph.D and Masters' theses than you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-12 15:32
>>25
Trying to pretend those are even close to being the same thing is disingenuous.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-12 16:55
>>26
Hardly, firstly because that sort of study is particular to one subfield of what is under the umbrella term psychology. It is also thankfully criticized by others in the same field, as would any study in any field that was read by others. (Some textbooks are better than others to offer criticisms and discuss the concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability.)
Science = Faith in Logic, Reason, and the Scientific Method. This faith is critical of itself, is continuously being improved, and understood as merely the current "best guess" model of our understanding, not as The Truth.
Religion = Faith in absolutely anything you feel like for no justifiable reason, often proclaiming a similar Faith's text of "Truth" as a circular and fallacious argument, dispite major differences in your own Faith. This Faith takes one step backwards with every step of progress of Science makes and yet each individual Faith still proclaims to be The Truth. This Faith makes excuses for every argument it attempts to debunk, but each and every one resorts to a fallacy of Logic to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. This Faith flat out refuses to seriously address any of the difficult questions by feigning ignorance of it's own beliefs. This Faith is blind, self-righteous and dogmatic. This Faith is often corrupted from another more mellow Faith to fuel intolerance, hatred, and violence and yet hides behind that parent Faith's preachings of love and peace.
And I'll stop myself there before I wind myself up into a fit.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-13 20:29
>>30
Science requires no faith at all, just eyes to see objective truth.
Religion requires that we accept a priori claims of all manner of ghosts-and-pixies stuff. In science all information is derived from empirical testing of propositions.
One "believes in" Jehovah or Allah or Krishna.
One does not "believe in" Einstein's theory of relativity, or Maxwell's equations, or the double helix structure of DNA, or photons. One provisionally accepts them as useful models of the universe, without emotional attachment, without cultural baggage, without politics.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-14 15:39
No, but you do have to "believe in" your psychiatrists ability, or else you'll get fucked up worse than if you never sought help in the first place. Seriously, there's a bunch of fags that religiously study psychology without seeing the people there. It stops being about people when you defend it's sanctity instead of seeing other peoples point of view. It's popular, so everyone sees what they think it can do instead of looking for where it definitely fails.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-14 20:59
science = faith in induction
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-14 23:11
>>32
Stop saying that bullshit, we heard it 64 times from you already >>33
that's like saying "faith in reason" for fuck sake
>>36
I dreamt about that once. Luckily, my good friend S.F. was at hand to interpret it for me. Turns out I subconsciously want to start smoking cigars. With my mother.
Because sometimes a cigar is a big fat pulsating cock. Now, go back to /b/ or /d/. I completely understand your love of tentacle-dick, and your subconscious desire to deny it.
[url=http://www.romancearound.com/]dresses[/url]is the wedding ceremony and wedding banquet when the bride wears a western-style dress, wedding can a single refers to wearing apparel accessories, may also include part of the wedding veil bouquet of color, design, depending on the various factors, including cultural and religious timely outfit trend etc from western, as distinguished from the[url=http://www.romancearound.com/wedding-dresses-c-180.html]wedding Dresses[/url] of Chinese style tradition gives priority to with red skirt of grapes