You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Science Under Attack

in #science8 years ago

Don't know how much the people here know about your real-life identity or how much you want them to know, so I'll ask this covertly: these students you write essays for, are they enrolled in backwoods universities in a boondocks country whose name nobody knows? From my experience, it would be much harder to write essays for top-level universities, and also it's much easier to write those kinds of essays for first-year undergraduate students. Also, can you do the same with master's degrees and PhDs as easily? The higher up you go in academia (i.e., where the science really matters), the more difficult it is to get away with schemes of that sort. I mean, how does Science suffer if an undergraduate earns a fake degree? The real world suffers, and the reputation of the discipline suffers—but the science itself couldn't care less about an ignorant undergrad.

"Human behavior changes depending on what we ate last night, if we got laid and what magazine we read in the waiting room before the experiment."

Which hard science made this discovery? Was it biology, chemistry, or physics?

Sort:  

I did it also for universities in Australia, Japan and USA.

I did 4 masters. No Phd's

I mean, how does Science suffer if an undergraduate earns a fake degree? The real world suffers, and the reputation of the discipline suffers—but the science itself couldn't care less about an ignorant undergrad.

it does. because if I am doing it, its happening in all levels. I know some people that do PhDs actually for a very good pay. A PhD is nothing really. Just needs persistence. Anyone can get a PhD, especially in social 'sciences'

"Human behavior changes depending on what we ate last night, if we got laid and what magazine we read in the waiting room before the experiment."
Which hard science made this discovery? Was it biology, chemistry, or physics?

Use google. no need to troll. I assume you should be familiar with the basics..you know, having written a book and all. ..

Well your first two answers prove your point, and it's sad.

About the third one, I'm not trolling, that's your neck of the woods! It just seemed odd to me that you'd try and discredit the social sciences based on research done by the social sciences (e.g. daniel kahneman etc.)

Well the first two answers prove your point, and it's sad.

I was doing it for money. The thousands in my pockets did not seem sad.

About the third one, I'm not trolling, that's your neck of the woods! It just seemed odd to me that you'd try and discredit the social sciences based on research done by the social sciences (e.g. daniel kahneman etc.)

I can discredit social sciences as "sciences". They are simply descriptive fields. NOT scientific. And guess what. I just did with plenty of examples why they cannot be scientific. Care to upgrade your counter-arguments and put that philosophy degree to (any) use?

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.

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 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