Defend your right to own a car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echonova

Science is based on things that are repeatable, one may not know why gravity makes the apple fall... But it does so every time.

Psychology does not = Science in a broad term. That's all I was getting at.

---

I can see where a case like that is confusing. Psychology as a whole is definitely a science and is definitely based on a quantitative and qualitative set of data. Its kind of hard to think up an analogy that would explain why her case doesn't really disqualify psychology as a science.

Everytime you drop an apple on the ground, it'll fall, but I can fake zero gravity by taking you up in an airplane and doing some zero G maneuvers. Then when you drop the apple, it'll appear to float. Does that mean that there's a flaw in gravitation and relativity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

The impression i got in psychology was that a lot of things are left open to interpretation. It was hardly an exact science.

---

You don't strike me as someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system, so this isn't much of a surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

You don't strike me as someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system, so this isn't much of a surprise.

---

You make this assumption based on me not favoring your King or the fictional liberal utopia you wish to create. I'm curious as to how my "belief system" would be defined?

also... feel free to offer the liberal twist on that last article i posted on the previous page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will

---

Tea Party.org references prisonplanet.com, with "impeach Obama now" not even a quarter way down the page. I'm no expert, but is say whatever bullshit they're spewing is dubious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You make this assumption based on me not favoring your King or the fictional liberal utopia you wish to create. I'm curious as to how my "belief system" would be defined?

---

I make that assumption because you're trying to pass off information from prisonplanet.com as genuine journalism.

Still not sure of what liberal utopia you're referring to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Tea Party.org references prisonplanet.com, with "impeach Obama now" not even a quarter way down the page. I'm no expert, but is say whatever bullshit they're spewing is dubious.

---

Doesnt surprise me... you're not someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system. That's about the 50th time you've discredited something based on the webpage it was on. If John Smith says something in the news and every news organization prints it, me chosing to post the Foxnews link doesnt make it false.

The page prints the testimony of Jim Garrow. Are you questioning the validity of their quotation?

here you go, pick whichever news source that tickles your fancy and then offer an opinion on the content rather than the blanket denial you usually apply to anything that shines a negative light on King Obama.

Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens' - Virginia Beach Conservative | Examiner.com

Jim Garrow: Inside Source Claims That Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who

Shocking Warning Dr. Jim Garrow: Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who 'Will Fire On U.S. Citizens' | Obama

» Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will

Humanitarian Jim Garrow Claims Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who Will Fire On US CitizensL|LAmerican Live Wire

Obama asking military leaders to fire on Americans, says Nobel Prize nominee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I make that assumption because you're trying to pass off information from prisonplanet.com as genuine journalism.

Still not sure of what liberal utopia you're referring to

---

you know... the liberal utopia where we print money, make trillion dollar coins and the sky bursts open and rains food stamps for everyone. Where you're always as safe as a baby in the womb as long as big brother government is watching your back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Doesnt surprise me... you're not someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system. That's about the 50th time you've discredited something based on the webpage it was on.

---

I love a challenge to my belief system, that's why I study a science, because I enjoy learning.

Quote:

---

The page prints the testimony of Jim Garrow. Are you questioning the validity of their quotation?

---

Im questioning the validity of Jim Garrows claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I love a challenge to my belief system, that's why I study a science, because I enjoy learning.

Im questioning the validity of Jim Garrows claims.

---

Why? does the shoe not fit?

No. The shoe hasn't been made yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

No. The shoe hasn't been made yet.

---

Denial is a coping mechanism.


If this is true, how do you feel about it?

Keep in mind.... we're talking about a president who let black panther thugs off the hook, allowed fast and furious to happen, made it legal to permanently detain american citizens without trial, allowed a US ambassador to be murdered and then possibly had something to do with covering it up, allow drone strikes on us citizens that havnt stood trial and even has the blood of us citizens on his hands already.... and gun control.

Obama’s Not a “Liberal” – He’s a Communist « Nice Deb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I can see where a case like that is confusing. Psychology as a whole is definitely a science and is definitely based on a quantitative and qualitative set of data. Its kind of hard to think up an analogy that would explain why her case doesn't really disqualify psychology as a science.

Everytime you drop an apple on the ground, it'll fall, but I can fake zero gravity by taking you up in an airplane and doing some zero G maneuvers. Then when you drop the apple, it'll appear to float. Does that mean that there's a flaw in gravitation and relativity?

---

Since you are not educated in the field of psychology, and have very limited life experience, what qualifies you to know more about these specific cases than professional psychologists? I do not see where your opinion is any better than a hobos.

There are lots of applied sciences that do not meet the litmus test of science. And to be equated to be the same as geology, biology, physics, etc is not reasonable. I work in a field that is an applied science as well, but I do not falsely claim to be a scientist.

I'll give you something to contemplate.
Three days ago, a new psychological study was released on which countries are the happiest. The top three are Norway, Sweden, and Australia. The US was number 12.
Happiness is not defined the same between individuals or cultures. There is no way to measure happiness - no rulers or scales, just an arbitrary number. This means that it does not have clear terminology and is not quantifiable. It does not pass scientific rigor. In this case, psychology is not providing an empirical analysis of the natural word, and it is unable to present a defined secular truth.

As for the apple/zero gravity example, the answer is no, there is no flaw. It is a controlled experiment that is repeatable, predictable, and testable.
You don't seem to grasp the most basic structure of science.

Psychology is valuable and useful, but you cannot sell it as being the same as biology, physics, etc. To do so is to attempt to redefine science. This is why real scientists experience intellectual frustration. If you allow anything with statistical analysis to be a science, then any field is a science, and you demean the value of those who actually work in fields that adhere to the structure of scientific dedcution and discover real truths.

just read post 1. Go back to sleep hippie.

USA automotive related death rate is a lot lower than most other countries. We can not rely on Public transportation because we are either very concentrated or we are VERY spread out and also that would mean relying on the GOVERNMENT to get you where you need to go.

are you sure your signature graphic is not a mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPOOLIN

just read post 1. Go back to sleep hippie.

USA automotive related death rate is a lot lower than most other countries. We can not rely on Public transportation because we are either very concentrated or we are VERY spread out and also that would mean relying on the GOVERNMENT to get you where you need to go.

are you sure your signature graphic is not a mistake?

---

We can rely on government for transportation the same way as we rely on them for protection. The police and fire stations deal with the same obstacles and do it without issue. Our military polices the entire world. Complete reliance on government transportation is not the only option on the table. Cars can be limited to 40mph and 1000 pounds.

No, i am 100% positive that my graphic is accurate.

all i can say is HOLY SHIT.

and also, Most crashes occur with vehicles either traveling slower than the average speed or higher than....so going slower doesn't help shit. You really need to get the fuck out of this AUTOMOTIVE FORUM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPOOLIN

just read post 1. Go back to sleep hippie.

USA automotive related death rate is a lot lower than most other countries. We can not rely on Public transportation because we are either very concentrated or we are VERY spread out and also that would mean relying on the GOVERNMENT to get you where you need to go.

are you sure your signature graphic is not a mistake?

---

I think there's something wrong with both of his signature graphics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPOOLIN

all i can say is HOLY SHIT.

and also, Most crashes occur with vehicles either traveling slower than the average speed or higher than....so going slower doesn't help shit. You really need to get the fuck out of this AUTOMOTIVE FORUM.

---

Drunk drivers kill 10s of thousands of people a year. Children are having their lives stripped away by the car culture in america that allows people the freedom to abuse drugs and alcohol while operating a vehicle. A car culture that builds corvettes that exceed 150mph and for no purpose. Insuring the safety of our citizens is more important than your ability to roam the streets as you please. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

Would you not rely on government transportation if it saved lives? do you not trust that the government could provide you with adequate transportation to meet all of your needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I think there's something wrong with both of his signature graphics...

---

I thought you bowed out of this one in defeat, what brings you back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I thought you bowed out of this one in defeat, what brings you back?

---

Defeat? Where did that happen? David88 shared his uneducated opinion on the science of psychology, which, as an American, he's entitled to have. I chose not to dignify it with a response. If he wanted to be a little more educated about his stance, maybe sit in on some lectures, write a couple theses, I could take him a little more seriously. But simply saying he doesn't believe psychology is a science because he doesn't think it deals with analyticals, and quantifiable data, and repeatably conclusive research, despite the opposite being true, makes him look ignorant. He's only here to try and win an argument he knows he's on the loosing side of. I'm not gonna be a party to it. It's more fun, for me to let him bask in his ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Defeat? Where did that happen? David88 shared his uneducated opinion on the science of psychology, which, as an American, he's entitled to have. I chose not to dignify it with a response. If he wanted to be a little more educated about his stance, maybe sit in on some lectures, write a couple theses, I could take him a little more seriously. But simply saying he doesn't believe psychology is a science because he doesn't think it deals with analyticals, and quantifiable data, and repeatably conclusive research, despite the opposite being true, makes him look ignorant. He's only here to try and win an argument he knows he's on the loosing side of. I'm not gonna be a party to it. It's more fun, for me to let him bask in his ignorance.

---

It's easy to convince yourself that you're right, the challenge lies in proving it to your opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

It's easy to convince yourself that you're right, the challenge lies in proving it to your opposition.

---

Convince myself that I'm right? Lol. When I type on this iPhone, I don't have to convince myself that its real. David88 is trying to convince himself that iPhones don't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Convince myself that I'm right? Lol. When I type on this iPhone, I don't have to convince myself that its real. David88 is trying to convince himself that iPhones don't exist.

---

Psychology is an exact science that can produce predictable and measurable results?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Psychology is an exact science that can produce predictable and measurable results?

---

Do iPhones exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Do iPhones exist?

---

I cant say i agree with you... but i offer submission in advance as i'm not willing to study the topic enough to offer a counter argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Do iPhones exist?

---

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/w...ga/science.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Psychology is an exact science that can produce predictable and measurable results?

---

Ask yourself this, do you think it's not because you don't see psychologists and psychiatrists in fancy lab coats and swirling around graduated cylinders and beakers full of special brightly colored chemicals? Or is it because you don't really understand what kind of quantifiable data a psychologist is looking for, and what that data actually means?

What do you think a predictable and measurable result actually means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Ask yourself this, do you think it's not because you don't see psychologists and psychiatrists in fancy lab coats and swirling around graduated cylinders and beakers full of special brightly colored chemicals? Or is it because you don't really understand what kind of quantifiable data a psychologist is looking for, and what that data actually means?

What do you think a predictable and measurable result actually means?

---

I suppose it would be because i do not understand the information they are looking for and would not validate any information that was left up to interpretation. I also come to this conclusion based on how often i see psychologist in disagreement with each other. It's my opinion that a lot is left to interpretation of events.

If i pour gas on fire, 100 times out of 100, the same result will happen. I dont feel psychology works with the same precision. Also, how can you measure the ability to fake? seems like that would be a variable in every equation. I can fake every emotion. How does psychology overcome that obstacle with any level of certainty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

If i pour gas on fire, 100 times out of 100, the same result will happen. I dont feel psychology works with the same precision. Also, how can you measure the ability to fake? seems like that would be a variable in every equation. I can fake every emotion. How does psychology overcome that obstacle with any level of certainty?

---

There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science. That's what makes science science.

So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?

How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?

There are physiological responses that determine the validity of emotions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science. That's what makes science science.

So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?

How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?

There are physiological responses that determine the validity of emotions.

---

My argument isnt that psychology is invalid, simply that it's far behind what we commonly recognize as science. The degree of uncertainty and interpretation is much greater in psychology.

It wouldnt. I know precisely how fire/gas works and can predict and measure every result.

I dont. Which leads me to another question, how does psychology account for belief systems? whats true to you might not be true to me.

And you can determine the validity of emotions to what percentage of accuracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

My argument isnt that psychology is invalid, simply that it's far behind what we commonly recognize as science. The degree of uncertainty and interpretation is much greater in psychology.

---

A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.

Quote:

---

It wouldnt. I know precisely how fire/gas works and can predict and measure every result.

---

The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.

Quote:

---

I dont. Which leads me to another question, how does psychology account for belief systems? whats true to you might not be true to me.

---

You take belief out of the equation.

Quote:

---

And you can determine the validity of emotions to what percentage of accuracy?

---

As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests

then you are trusting a bus driver to not kill 50 people at a time. You are living in a dream world...the statistics would probably be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.

The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.

You take belief out of the equation.

As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests

---

Everything that happens with fire is predictable, measurable, can be calculated and duplicated on command. Every result can be explained and measured. Yes, baking flour can ignite almost exactly the same as gas... when properly mixed with oxygen, just like gas. A pile of flour wont explode, a mixture of flour and oxygen will. A predictable, measurable result that can be duplicated with certainty. A flour mill has to follow government regulations on combustible dust, they have regulated equipment that they have to use and even have monitoring devices that measure the PPM of dust in the air. The temperature in which something ignites is measurable, predictable and can be duplicated. That is an example of science at work..... compare that to say..... the mental exam a police officer would get after discharging his firearm or someone being diagnosed with depression.

Give me an example of psychology being used with any degree of measurable certainty. You can diagnose depression with the accuracy of a home pregnancy test?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPOOLIN

then you are trusting a bus driver to not kill 50 people at a time. You are living in a dream world...the statistics would probably be the same.

---

Not simply a bus driver.... that bus driver would be a government employee, someone that we could trust with our safety. We're already aware of the government's ability to protect us via our police force and military, there's no reason not to offer them the same trust with our transportation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You can diagnose depression with the accuracy of a home pregnancy test?

---

With the males on the other end of that phone call...









Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echonova

With the males on the other end of that phone call...









Yes.

---

lol

holy dear god, im frightened you are the same age as me. You are obscenely blind to the world, did you grow up under a rock? We're you home schooled? did you grow up in a cult camp? I would not care if thousands of lives were saved by following your ideas because the world as we know it would completely collapse into a depression of great magnitude. Having to rely on either a horse and carriage or govt controlled transportation to get somewhere would cause a calamity, no real on demand travel...tons of time wasted in life waiting. So in the end here, you are just plain STUPID and are not thinking about the BIG PICTURE. PEOPLE DIE, GET OVER IT.

100's of millions > thousands

NO ONE is forced to get in a car and drive. Its ASSUMED risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPOOLIN

holy dear god, im frightened you are the same age as me. You are obscenely blind to the world, did you grow up under a rock? We're you home schooled? did you grow up in a cult camp? I would not care if thousands of lives were saved by following your ideas because the world as we know it would completely collapse into a depression of great magnitude. Having to rely on either a horse and carriage or govt controlled transportation to get somewhere would cause a calamity, no real on demand travel...tons of time wasted in life waiting. So in the end here, you are just plain STUPID and are not thinking about the BIG PICTURE. PEOPLE DIE, GET OVER IT.

100's of millions > thousands

NO ONE is forced to get in a car and drive. Its ASSUMED risk.

---

He is being 100% sarcastic. Don't pay attention to his gun hugging self.