Defend your right to own a car.

[.blank cd]

Do you have a degree in psychology or are you employed as a scientist?

Im not a doctor of psychology and Im employed in an applied science.

As for psychology being science, most scientists from hard science such as biology disagree with sociologists and psychologists.
Psychology does not meet the five requirements for a field to be considered scientically rigorous. It does not have clearly defined terminology, quantifibility, higly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, or predictability and testability.
Psychology is not able to meet the standards of science.

Pretty hard to tell if you're serious here. But I'll tell you like I told E36, your opinion of psychological science is starkly different from reality. LOL.

[Sinfix_15]

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will

[.blank cd]

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?

[.blank cd]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[Sinfix_15]

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

[.blank cd]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[Sinfix_15]

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

[.blank cd]

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

[Sinfix_15]

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.

[.blank cd]

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.

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

Im questioning the validity of Jim Garrows claims.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[.blank cd]

No. The shoe hasn't been made yet.

[Sinfix_15]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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

[David88vert]

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.

[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?

[Sinfix_15]

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.

[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.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[.blank cd]

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...

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[.blank cd]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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.

[.blank cd]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[.blank cd]

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

Do iPhones exist?

[Sinfix_15]

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.

[Echonova]

Do iPhones exist?

[.blank cd]

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?

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[David88vert]

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.

Once again, you refuse to answer any question or address any facts. You have a tendency to ignore anything concrete, and only answer with your unsubstantiated opinions - or you just try to pretend that you answer with some unrelated question.

I actually did not offer my uneduacted opinion on psychology, I gave you the opinion of Professor Peter Rickman. He actually does have a degree and was at the City University of London.
Do you have a degree in Psychology, or any degree at all? Answer that question.
What is your official job title - you know, what you would actually list on your resume.

Define how happiness could be researched globaly.
Explain how human behavior can be accurately predicted. Here's a hint:
"Human behavior is complex, and it is not possible to conduct experiments to test all aspects of what people do or why." - Professor (of Psychology) Timothy D. Wilson - University of Virginia

I was in lectures when you were in diapers, if you are really only 22.

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.

This is an outright lie from you. I never said such a thing. Once again, you make up whatever you want, and expect us to just accept it as truth.

Do iPhones exist?

Again, you do not answer the question posted to you. You reply with an unrelated question that has no bearing on the discussion.

iPhones exist - Physics can utilize all of the basic principle of science to verify that the molecules that make up the phone exist.. Physics is a science.

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?

[insert black_cd type of response]How is political science a science? [/insert black_cd type of response]

Science - The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

Show me a thought in physical form. Don't give random comments back - show me the molecules involved.

[.blank cd]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[.blank cd]

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.

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.

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.

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

As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests

[Sinfix_15]

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?

[Echonova]

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

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









Yes.

[Sinfix_15]

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









Yes.

lol

[David88vert]

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.

"There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science." - only partially correct

"That's what makes science science." - No, not true. Review the definition of science - "the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms." Following the structure of science in testing the physical world, and discovering secular truths, that is what make 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?" - It would be an experiment that was not repeated exactly the same way 30 times - a flawed experiment. Think before you type.

"How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?" - Religion is not science. Why you added this random comment is not clear.

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

"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" - Psychologists that are in the lab are practicing CHEMISTRY - a science that actually is dealing with the physical world. Of course their chemical tests should follow the same scrutiny - it's chemistry.

"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." - Correct. It's chemistry, and not psychology. How does this chemistry experiment prove that psychology is a science? You still have offered nothing more than your uneduated, personal opinion on the matter.

"You take belief out of the equation" - Again, religion is not science, and does not help your case.

"As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests" - Home pregnancy tests are based on chemistry, not psychology.