You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Science Under Attack

in #science8 years ago

Well it seems like you vacillate between the 'soft' point that these disciplines simply shouldn't use the moniker 'science', and the 'harder' point that these disciplines shouldn't be funded period. If you're arguing for the latter point, then, since I already mentioned (the Nobel prize winning psychologist) Daniel Kahneman, you could maybe try and explain to me why you think his discoveries are unimportant and why we shouldn't care about them.

Sort:  

Well it seems like you vacillate between the 'soft' point that these disciplines simply shouldn't use the moniker 'science', and the 'harder' point that these disciplines shouldn't be funded period.

I don't care if they do. I am just pointing the flaw out.

If you're arguing for the latter point, then, since I already mentioned (the Nobel prize winning psychologist) Daniel Kahneman, you could maybe try and explain to me why you think his discoveries are unimportant and why we shouldn't care about them.

titles and contexts don't mean shit. You are appealing to authority to win an argument. It's sad. Learn to argue based on my arguments no based on "Look but but this guy got a Nobel, he is important!"

But hey, I guess you have to learn a bit about the Nobel charade as well. You seriously need to do some reading man.

Start with this. If you want to continue the argument before you google, you won't like my next link.

https://heatst.com/world/bob-dylans-nobel-prize-is-a-joke-even-he-thinks-so/

I wasn't making the argument you're accusing me of! Yeah I mentioned his Nobel prize (in parentheses) but that was beside the point. I actually read the guy's research and it's very instructive, and in fact I think you'd love it! You could try reading his book Thinking fast and slow if you got the time and appetite. I don't care shit for nobel prizes etc. tbh.

You are not making any argument why it is science.

Thinking fast and slow

Read it. equivalent of self-help of Tony Robbins but with pedantic explanations of basic anthropological principles. Everything psychology has, it got from anthropology.

I can't make any argument why it's science without going into the specifics, nor do I think have you made an argument, because again one needs to go into the specifics. You have made declarations. I haven't seen any arguments.

You and I must've read different books! I admit the book isn't written in the same dry academic style as his research, but comparing him to Tony Robbins?!! The article I linked to doesn't read like self-help to me.

And by 'anthropology', you mean those guys who say anything is valid within the context of every specific society? So if one society believes the earth is flat, they're right, and if another disagrees, they're also right—you mean those guys?

Pick anything from psychology. anything you want and try to support it.

You have made declarations. I haven't seen any arguments.

I did make arguments in my post. go read it again and make counter arguments,

You and I must've read different books! I admit the book isn't written in the same dry academic style as his research, but comparing him to Tony Robbins?!! The article I linked to doesn't read like self-help to me.

the link and the book are two different things.

And by 'anthropology', you mean those guys who say anything is valid within the context of every specific society?

that's sociology you are thinking.

o if one society believes the earth is flat, they're right, and if another disagrees, they're also right—you mean those guys?

sigh...now you are just shooting yourself on the foot

Apparently besides reading completely different books with the same titles, you and I haven't met the same anthropologists or read the same academic texts either! It was only a few weeks ago I was talking to an anthropologist and she was giving me the same crap about cultural relativism.

Your offer to pick something from psychology and try to support it is tempting but time-consuming, plus I've 'known' you for years and I can't recall a single instance where you admitted a mistake, so I think the endeavor would be pointless. Suffice it to say that it was you who mentioned the 'eating influences decisions' thing, but apparently you don't consider that statement supportable, because it was discovered by the social sciences.

Apparently besides reading completely different books with the same titles, you and I haven't met the same anthropologists or read the same academic texts either! It was only a few weeks ago I was talking to an anthropologist and she was giving me the same crap about cultural relativism.

How's that has to do with anything? Again, you are taking it personal.

Your offer to pick something from psychology and try to support it is tempting but time-consuming, plus I've 'known' you for years and I can't recall a single instance where you admitted a mistake,

well, you did bother to type a comment. You might as well offer an argument for starters. I've changed my mind several times about things. You just happen not to be one to do it. + You didn't bother much to debate me before until now that you have a chance to make money. Now, what does that tell you, about you? :)

Suffice it to say that it was you who mentioned the 'eating influences decisions' thing,

more like biology.

still, no arguments. nada. Same old whiny alexis.

I only mentioned him in the first place cos you were basically quoting research he was involved in (judges being influenced in their verdicts according to the time they had lunch etc.) : http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full

quoting his research doesn't make the field scientific. I only put these links because you asked.

you are hurting yourself man. do follow up