I can't believe THIS hasn't been posted yet (statistics, child, calling)

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. He told me about an old Scientific American article he still has that addresses psychology and the soft vs hard science debate. In that there is no soft vs hard science, there is only science and psychology is not science. He's so concise and spot on. So, whatever the feminists are doing, whatever the pro-evo-psych misogynists are doing, none of it is about science, but political manipulation.

I think the distinction is that science is not necessarily what endorses the human endeavor as being particularly useful. I view it only as a descriptive measure in the process of how this "truth" or theory came about.

No, I'm an atheist. Although, you are a creationist or at least you were). And you are using the term evolution in common form, while I'm pretty sure that people who use the term evo-psych actually mean evolution as adapted, heritable biological processes.

I was a creationist when I was quite young, but quickly realized I was more or less disgusted with all theories of our origins. They were all broken, and yet everyone believed in their respective nonsense. Darwinism was as hopelessly broken, but with its label as "science" it took on an undeserved heir.

Yes, your worldview. It does not fit in pharma research. I'm a research scientist in pharma. I think I know how it goes. And I have a psychology degree as well as chem, premed, and clinical grad degrees. I think my pov is at the middle of the road. As noted earlier, I now reject the idea of soft science all together. It's not science and there shouldn't be debate here. To be clear, I'm not addressing value.

Your results are all based upon inference. Our thoughts are reducible to the same chemical and physiological reactions to your drug reactions. Psycho active drugs expose this completely. You are merely creating an artificial barrier more or less arbitrarily picked at some level of complexity. All you have is a bit more certainly because of the statistical tolerances are much more precise and is a bit more isolated. There is no real difference. You keep telling me its different, without showing any differences.

You cling to stats because that's the only tangible thing in psych, but it's a very small aspect of scientific research in my experience. It's the last thing on my mind until I'm nearing the end of a project.

You must be joking? I keep telling you its in every field because it is. You don't have a population. You are always dealing with samples. So its all inferred from the sample to the population. You have no clue on how someone will react to a medication because of this. Its also not the only tangible thing in psychology . Your statement is preposterous. I can observe individual or group behavior and record facts thereof. I can suggest that people behave in certain ways because its an observed fact. Lets return to ancient Greece. Thucydides explained why the hoplite phalanxes always drifted right. It was because of the psychological desire of each individual to live, and they would tend to use their neighbor's shield as cover . In short:

It was observed human behavior under certain conditions driven by self preservations and thus a verifiable human psychological fact that was addressed quite successfully by Boatians against the once invincible Lacedaemonians because they better accounted for this in their formations which helped lead to Macedonian domination of Hellas.

Any kind of solid evo-psych sort of application in the above?Would any intelligent person suggest that it was fluke for the drifting formation on which hand held the shield and which the spear?

You don't want true randomness in pharma research. You start with a specific diseased target. That's not random.

Well of course. The randomness is necessary for all the other aspects of your population but its the hard thing to do. I don't think its too hard to collect the one condition you are looking for. Find people over six feet tall? Pretty simple. But what if a basket ball team or a volley ball team is in town? You would start to pick up racial characteristics. Knowing where the samples are coming from, thats trick, not the over six feet tall. If you want to study dogs, then you don't randomly pick animals. Its easy to pick dogs, but of you are sloppy and find strays the easiest to get, then you may find something true only for stray dogs. You randomly pick up dogs so that you don't confound your research so that it only applies to stray dogs.

If your molecule binds to the target you then begin to assess potency. Then you evaluate physiochemical properties. Is the molecule soluble? How quickly does it dissolve? If it's too soluble it won't permeate a cell, so how permeable is it? Insert molecular modification. Does the compound have affinity to protein binding in the blood, fatty tissue, etc? Is the compound cleared quickly? If so, why? If/when it's metabolized then it's time to study the metabolites, look at toxicity, etc.

Guess what? That is analogous to what everyone else does. The strength of it, from the scientific point of view, is the ability to repeat and isolate. And that in itself is a problematic assumption all on its own given interactions.

Insert a million details that have to be juggled. I took at least a half dozen stats classes in my psych major and a number of epidemiology stats courses as well while an undergrad. It's not the same anything. Clearly, you're not going to believe that statement. All well, I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Why is that? Are you predicting that I would have the pschological state to retain my former bias? If you can't function without it, I find your belief system to be untenable.

Again, I don't devalue what psych can potentially offer. It is what it is and I know what it's not. I love epi as well. It's invaluable, but it's not science.

Neither is the drug industry a science. It simply uses it as a tool, just like the field of psychology.

Failed hypotheses do not determine what is and isn't science. A pharmaceutical molecule with an acidic pKa of 5, for example, is going to be fully ionized at pH 9. That's the chemistry of it. What it means in pharma, tho, is that this molecule will be unionized at gastric pH (2-4). If oral administration is wanted, that may affect its solubility, therefore the compound never dissolves, never reaches the intestinal lumen in a solubilized state, never makes it to the blood stream. It's a fail. Doesn't change the science.

I'd really like to know how this differs from pedestrians at a cross walk when looking at a speeding bus? So you essentially decide human behavior is not subject to similar laws? On the lower hierarchies of need, not so much. But getting to the heart of the matter, I notice a tendency that when it comes to making "generalizations" that some of the girls reject it bitterly since every girl is so special. So then when the topic comes about comparing the special qualities from region to region, then the response is that every one is basically the same.

I'm not sure why you speak with confidence about fields in which you have no professional experience. What is that about?

Why are you using logical fallacies that have to do with the presenter of the argument rather then the argument aka appeal to authority? And I think my education is valid enough. Am I supposed to make a living off da guberment largess with a grant like a good Ghostbuster or some such? The best charlatan is a professional one.

Of course the FDA is concerned with toxicity. Pharmaceutics are first and foremost toxins. But, again, the FDA has its hands all over the place. I really don't understand your point. The FDA even has guidelines for the physiochemistry.

Its all based on "parts per fill in the blank", and then its another problem of the arbitrary decisions on whether a change is a problem. They are not all about science. Just happened to catch the movie called Puncture. That is where irrefutable common sense meets institutional reality.

That has not been my experience at all! There's no yes/no. At least not in my field. I wish I could find a pic that has a few dozen scales/balances on it and having them all positioned to arrive at the "sweet spot". That's the kind of answer in science I'm used to.

Then you its not a hard science or its just an arbitrary concept invented by hard scientists. I mean maybe I am not a biologist but I think I know when I need to take a wiz. That is what it has come to in this sience fetish country of ours. I need a PHD to tell me how to eat, sleep and take a leak. Thus the whole argument about dismissing evo-psych, which has everything from rather easily reproducible facts to outlandish claims that are no worse than what drug companies claim, seems rather more do to personal taste.

I don't know economics well, but I do know of a few economists who like to take the role of social scientist (or at least their understanding of it). I have some funny comics in my bookmarks about economists that I'll have to find for you.

How the average person approaches economics and that we are a democracy frightens me.

Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if folk stopped trying to put everything under the umbrella of science where it doesn't belong.

Maybe but it depends on how you mean. Most everything we engage in does have scientific support. Perhaps if those fields did a better job of dividing the theory from the fact, but as I said, most disciplines have elements of both. Good food has scientific support like the chemistry beneath it. Is a chef an artist or a scientist? How can science prove a master slave relationship that is exploitive vs one that is unequally symbiotic? It can't.

You remind me of my dad lol. We argue and get over it at the end of the conversation. Although, you were not provoked in this conversation.

Of course not which is why I am attacking the argument and not the many pea brains I run into in cyber space.

Have to run, gwyn. I have really bad CV's that I must attend to . I'm not kidding. I'm at 20%, and that's not good. I've got to get them down to <5.

I am just glad it didn't happen to me.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

I think the distinction is that science is not necessarily what endorses the human endeavor as being particularly useful. I view it only as a descriptive measure in the process of how this "truth" or theory came about.

If I'm understanding you, then yes, I agree. It's a method of inquiry that is dependent on certain qualities (falsifiability, etc). That's all. Not to diminish it, but folk need to keep this in mind.

I was a creationist when I was quite young, but quickly realized I was more or less disgusted with all theories of our origins. They were all broken, and yet everyone believed in their respective nonsense. Darwinism was as hopelessly broken, but with its label as "science" it took on an undeserved heir.

Darwinism does not cover abiogenesis last I knew. I've never been too involved in those debates, but I've never understood why it was evolution vs creationism and not big bang or abiogen (RNA world) vs creationism. I suppose evolution does dismiss Adam and Even type stories.

Your results are all based upon inference. Our thoughts are reducible to the same chemical and physiological reactions to your drug reactions. Psycho active drugs expose this completely.

What does this have to do with anything? I'm not following.

You are merely creating an artificial barrier more or less arbitrarily picked at some level of complexity. All you have is a bit more certainly because of the statistical tolerances are much more precise and is a bit more isolated. There is no real difference. You keep telling me its different, without showing any differences.

I'll give some difference examples. Scientific enquiry is an empirical approach based on theory and hypothesis generation where information/data is collected through experiments. A key feature is controlling variables (extraneous, dependent, etc) in order to ascertain that A is causing B. It should be falsifiable and we should be able to predict future behavior. The data is reported so that other scientists can repeat the same procedures and get the same results.

As an example, say you have a drug molecule that is insoluble (leading to poor exposure in the blood plasma) so you get an idea to add a soluble group to the molecule (it's now called a pro-drug). But, when that additional solubilizing group is there it kills potency. You are aware of enzymes A, B, and C in the gut and figure if you add a group that can be metabolized (broken off) by one of those enzymes before the drug reaches its target, your potency should be fine. That's basically a hypothesis (crudely worded), and an in vitro experimental design can easily be created for it. You know what the molecular weight is. You know which enzymes to use. You take your pro-drug, assay it with the enzyme, and then measure for the molecular weight in a mass spectrometer. You should see the molecular weight of the original drug (+1 proton [besides the point]), and the solubilizing group as a separate entity. That's a simple experiment that fits empirical criteria, the hypothesis is falsifiable, and we should be able to make reasonable predictions from it. Any scientist should be able to repeat this experiment x 1000.

So, lets take this approach to psychology. Can it ever, ethically, be empirical? No. You cannot control the environment or the test subjects. Given that, are experiments truly repeatable? Not really. Psychoanalysis aside, which I'm pretty sure you won't argue is science, basic data collection is far from robust. Lets take surveys. Surveys are given to a student body (across the land everyday all day). Word scoring is bizarre. I'm not sure who comes up with that stuff, but whatever. At the very least, it's data collection. It provides information, but it's not an experiment. It is stats, tho. And that can be useful, but it's not science.

You must be joking? I keep telling you its in every field because it is. You don't have a population.[ You are always dealing with samples. So its all inferred from the sample to the population. You have no clue on how someone will react to a medication because of this.

My example above addresses this well enough. One hypothesis to address one question, followed up with an experiment that is repeatable. With that said, if and when a person in the population reacts to a drug in an unexpected way there is always an answer to be had. It might not be apparent at first. It may take time to figure out, but there is some allele, some protein at the heart of the adverse effect. That we know. That's absolutely not the case with psych.

Its also not the only tangible thing in psychology . Your statement is preposterous. I can observe individual or group behavior and record facts thereof. I can suggest that people behave in certain ways because its an observed fact.

That's exactly my point. You're suggesting based on your opinion, but you cannot design an experiment around it. Would every other social sci person come to the same conclusion? No. Is is falsifiable? No.

Lets return to ancient Greece. Thucydides explained why the hoplite phalanxes always drifted right. It was because of the psychological desire of each individual to live, and they would tend to use their neighbor's shield as cover . In short:

It was observed human behavior under certain conditions driven by self preservations and thus a verifiable human psychological fact that was addressed quite successfully by Boatians against the once invincible Lacedaemonians because they better accounted for this in their formations which helped lead to Macedonian domination of Hellas.

That may be an astute, correct observation. It is not science or scientific enquiry.

Well of course. The randomness is necessary for all the other aspects of your population but its the hard thing to do. I don't think its too hard to collect the one condition you are looking for. Find people over six feet tall? Pretty simple. But what if a basket ball team or a volley ball team is in town? You would start to pick up racial characteristics. Knowing where the samples are coming from, thats trick, not the over six feet tall. If you want to study dogs, then you don't randomly pick animals. Its easy to pick dogs, but of you are sloppy and find strays the easiest to get, then you may find something true only for stray dogs. You randomly pick up dogs so that you don't confound your research so that it only applies to stray dogs.

Statistics.

Guess what? That is analogous to what everyone else does. The strength of it, from the scientific point of view, is the ability to repeat and isolate. And that in itself is a problematic assumption all on its own given interactions.

Exactly. The last sentence is just silly, but I think you're coming around.

Why is that? Are you predicting that I would have the pschological state to retain my former bias? If you can't function without it, I find your belief system to be untenable.

You are confusing statistics with science. Why?

Neither is the drug industry a science. It simply uses it as a tool, just like the field of psychology.

The drug industry is not science. It's an industry. Chemistry, physics, etc are science. Now if you are calling psychology something closer to an industry, ok. That makes more sense. Some areas of psych make use of science, but most of it doesn't appear to.

Then you its not a hard science or its just an arbitrary concept invented by hard scientists. I mean maybe I am not a biologist but I think I know when I need to take a wiz. That is what it has come to in this sience fetish country of ours. I need a PHD to tell me how to eat, sleep and take a leak. Thus the whole argument about dismissing evo-psych, which has everything from rather easily reproducible facts to outlandish claims that are no worse than what drug companies claim, seems rather more do to personal taste.

This is such nonsense, gwyn. You are not going to be a master cabinet maker just because you feel like it. You are going to be an Olympic medalist because you want. You're not going to be an expert in anything unless you spend the time and years gaining expertise. So yea, to speak and consider these topics with a good understanding is going to require a great deal more effort than making assumptions.

How the average person approaches economics and that we are a democracy frightens me.

Can you recommend any reading material?

Maybe but it depends on how you mean. Most everything we engage in does have scientific support. Perhaps if those fields did a better job of dividing the theory from the fact, but as I said, most disciplines have elements of both. Good food has scientific support like the chemistry beneath it. Is a chef an artist or a scientist? How can science prove a master slave relationship that is exploitive vs one that is unequally symbiotic? It can't.

Hopefully, my posts above will help answer some of these questions.

Of course not which is why I am attacking the argument and not the many pea brains I run into in cyber space.

I am just glad it didn't happen to me.

I have to keep fiddling around until I get them right.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I'll give some difference examples. Scientific enquiry is an empirical approach based on theory and hypothesis generation where information/data is collected through experiments. A key feature is controlling variables (extraneous, dependent, etc) in order to ascertain that A is causing B. It should be falsifiable and we should be able to predict future behavior. The data is reported so that other scientists can repeat the same procedures and get the same results.

As an example, say you have a drug molecule that is insoluble (leading to poor exposure in the blood plasma) so you get an idea to add a soluble group to the molecule (it's now called a pro-drug). But, when that additional solubilizing group is there it kills potency. You are aware of enzymes A, B, and C in the gut and figure if you add a group that can be metabolized (broken off) by one of those enzymes before the drug reaches its target, your potency should be fine. That's basically a hypothesis (crudely worded), and an in vitro experimental design can easily be created for it. You know what the molecular weight is. You know which enzymes to use. You take your pro-drug, assay it with the enzyme, and then measure for the molecular weight in a mass spectrometer. You should see the molecular weight of the original drug (+1 proton [besides the point]), and the solubilizing group as a separate entity. That's a simple experiment that fits empirical criteria, the hypothesis is falsifiable, and we should be able to make reasonable predictions from it. Any scientist should be able to repeat this experiment x 1000.

You are conflating the use of instruments to measure things that are not detectable by human senses. Using a spectrometer is like using a different eyeball. It does not differentiate between how we arrive at truths. I can taste a wine and determine acidity just as I can use a PH test. However it will be not as precise. The tools or precision does not change the scientific methods. Everything you just explained to me was exactly the same methodology I learned in "soft sciences" just as I was in hard sciences. Maybe it wasn't clinical psychology that you say you were exposed to?

So, lets take this approach to psychology. Can it ever, ethically, be empirical? No. You cannot control the environment or the test subjects.

You mean I can give someone 2000mg of acetaminophen a day to see what happens? I can use experimental drugs willy nilly? You can ethically give people any drug you like? You have just as much of a Zimbardo problem as he did. I wonder what sort of vivisections you think an evo-psychologist is apt to make. Maybe one might be interested to see what happens when people are drunk and thus a nice merger of these disciplines.

Given that, are experiments truly repeatable? Not really. Psychoanalysis aside, which I'm pretty sure you won't argue is science, basic data collection is far from robust. Lets take surveys. Surveys are given to a student body (across the land everyday all day). Word scoring is bizarre. I'm not sure who comes up with that stuff, but whatever. At the very least, it's data collection. It provides information, but it's not an experiment. It is stats, tho. And that can be useful, but it's not science.

Psychoanalysis? We may as well talk about drinking whiskey before surgery in your field. The founder did not use scientific methods .

My example above addresses this well enough. One hypothesis to address one question, followed up with an experiment that is repeatable. With that said, if and when a person in the population reacts to a drug in an unexpected way there is always an answer to be had. It might not be apparent at first. It may take time to figure out, but there is some allele, some protein at the heart of the adverse effect. That we know. That's absolutely not the case with psych.

Not at all. As I said. It was easy to see why the phalanx drifted. Its easy to see why people react the way they do to different stimuli. You have this very odd view that the field is someone lying on a couch talking about their mother. I am not kidding either. Your description of the field is as alien as a nail parlor is to a tack factory. It seems related, but its not. In fact I am highly critical of the "therapeutic" industry which shows improvement primarily through placebo effect and regression. That is unless it is more of a behavioral school that cures phobias and the like which shows significant effects.

That's exactly my point. You're suggesting based on your opinion, but you cannot design an experiment around it. Would every other social sci person come to the same conclusion? No. Is is falsifiable? No.

What are you talking about? Is it your opinion to see consistent results? You make no sense at all.

That may be an astute, correct observation. It is not science or scientific enquiry.

Do you really believe that I cannot construct a scientifically valid cause for drift today? I can't conduct an experiment to prove his point? You would not believe the results? I am confused to say the least at your position.

You are confusing statistics with science. Why?

Indeed it is beyond science. Its more like truth. However that is how science is measured or detected. When you see statistical significance there is some operating truth behind it. Statistics comes in play to determine if its within tolerances. We used statistical methods to determine whether a manufacturing process was broken or is was in tolerances. If a screw for example was out of tolerance, it would fall under a statistical measure to consider whether it was a procedural problem. A smudge on the m character may have been the result of a fly and not a break down in the printing process. This is essentially applied physics.

The drug industry is not science. It's an industry. Chemistry, physics, etc are science. Now if you are calling psychology something closer to an industry, ok. That makes more sense. Some areas of psych make use of science, but most of it doesn't appear to.

Again you seem to have this habit of ignoring key words like applied sciences which fall under statistical observation.

This is such nonsense, gwyn. You are not going to be a master cabinet maker just because you feel like it. You are going to be an Olympic medalist because you want. You're not going to be an expert in anything unless you spend the time and years gaining expertise. So yea, to speak and consider these topics with a good understanding is going to require a great deal more effort than making assumptions.

You spend most of your day looking at instruments and interpreting them( which are vulnerable to statistical errors too). Baking is a science and people do it every day, but because you use specific instruments in a particular field you seem to have some other idea. The scientific method is not terrible complicated per se. Just the details in the particular field. I don't suppose you believe a local bakery is going to have more insight than you? Anything that is repeatable and observable, which happens everywhere can fall under this. The building blocks of "soft sciences" are essentially composed of scientific methods or certainly can be. What you seem to confuse is that your PH test does not have an analog in pupil dilation, for example.

Can you recommend any reading material?

Henry George is the best of proof on how elegantly simple the right observation can be over something like a diminishing utility curve. I would choose him first because he is the best example of the accurate observation over heavily mathematical faulty ones. It is strange that so famous a man in his time, compared to Plato, is nearly unknown today, with mere vestiges of his influences in the game of Monopoly.

Progress and Poverty by Henry George


My favorites are Adam Smith ( who helped me embarrass poor Redisca , but then Marx would have done so also since its almost central to his theme in the Communist manifesto i. e. merchant vs landed gentry. I am still mystified by her blarney in lieu of so well established an historical fact) and Ricardo( who was first to observe the essential economic concept of economic rent which was expanded upon by Henry George).

Though these days you have to account for how finance has redirected the economic surplus from ground rents and other monopolistic rents into interest payments. One thing I would note is a theory is as good as how well one can predict and explain.

Well, was I right back in 2008?

//www.city-data.com/forum/perso...see-irony.html

Hopefully, my posts above will help answer some of these questions.

The only thing I can determine is that you have a notion of certainty in your field. But so do all of them. What you are talking about are procedures that are more prevalent in certain fields that more or less involve educated guesses. But that is just a matter of proportion and rather arbitrary in determination.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

You are conflating the use of instruments to measure things that are not detectable by human senses. Using a spectrometer is like using a different eyeball. It does not differentiate between how we arrive at truths. I can taste a wine and determine acidity just as I can use a PH test. However it will be not as precise. The tools or precision does not change the scientific methods. Everything you just explained to me was exactly the same methodology I learned in "soft sciences" just as I was in hard sciences. Maybe it wasn't clinical psychology that you say you were exposed to?

You're off the mark here and you appear to be entirely unaware of the potential for bias and how/why that matters. Your wine and acidity analogy is a perfect example. A seasoned wine enthusiast is not going to perceive the acidity of a fine red, as say, a 10 year old child. A pH electrode, OTOH, when calibrated with a known reference, is going to give you the correct pH every time. Your perception of acidity is dependent on your genetics, your age, and your health. Further, your perception of acidity is not something you can extrapolate to anyone or thing.

You mean I can give someone 2000mg of acetaminophen a day to see what happens? I can use experimental drugs willy nilly? You can ethically give people any drug you like? You have just as much of a Zimbardo problem as he did. I wonder what sort of vivisections you think an evo-psychologist is apt to make. Maybe one might be interested to see what happens when people are drunk and thus a nice merger of these disciplines.

Another thing you fail to grasp. Administration is not done willy nilly. You may think it is because you have no experience or knowledge of the field, but it's a decade of investigation (typically) before anything is administered to a human. Even then it's riddled with challenges. And that's the problem with psych since the only experimental space that can take place is in and around humans. You cannot knowingly cause harm to people. Even if you were able to do such experiments I have no idea how that data could be generalized onto other humans. There are so many unknowns.

Not at all. As I said. It was easy to see why the phalanx drifted. Its easy to see why people react the way they do to different stimuli. You have this very odd view that the field is someone lying on a couch talking about their mother. I am not kidding either. Your description of the field is as alien as a nail parlor is to a tack factory. It seems related, but its not. In fact I am highly critical of the "therapeutic" industry which shows improvement primarily through placebo effect and regression. That is unless it is more of a behavioral school that cures phobias and the like which shows significant effects.

You think you can easily see this or that. That's what people normally think. People assume all kinds of things. People think they know all kinds of things. The issue is can you prove it? If so, how?

What are you talking about? Is it your opinion to see consistent results? You make no sense at all.

I think it makes sense, but I don't know if you can grasp what I'm saying. I may not be communicating well enough. As I have been stating, if you're going to make a suggestion or give some kind of reasoning for an event, you need to be able to prove it.

Do you really believe that I cannot construct a scientifically valid cause for drift today? I can't conduct an experiment to prove his point? You would not believe the results? I am confused to say the least at your position.

I don't think so, but surprise me. Describe your experiment. I don't know how you're going to be able to prove that all of the herd drifted to the right because they all desired to live, or because some of them desired to live and the others just went along with the herd. And if you're able to design an experiment to prove that, I don't know how it can be used to predicted other human behaviors. It's doesn't seem feasible to me at all. Again, I'm really interested, so please share.

Indeed it is beyond science. Its more like truth. However that is how science is measured or detected. When you see statistical significance there is some operating truth behind it. Statistics comes in play to determine if its within tolerances. We used statistical methods to determine whether a manufacturing process was broken or is was in tolerances. If a screw for example was out of tolerance, it would fall under a statistical measure to consider whether it was a procedural problem. A smudge on the m character may have been the result of a fly and not a break down in the printing process. This is essentially applied physics.

Statistics are certainly needed and useful tools. I'm not arguing that and you clearly note it's value. That doesn't change the fact that it's not scientific inquiry. It's a tool.

Again you seem to have this habit of ignoring key words like applied sciences which fall under statistical observation.

I'm not following. I'm not arguing that stats aren't used in science. My premise is that in psych's attempt to be a science it's become all about stats. At this point I think that's due to the lacking of robust experimental design. Look at a psych major's course load at any university and then look at a chem major's course load. You'll find maybe one statistics course for chem majors and 5-7 stat course for psych majors. Why do you think that is?

You spend most of your day looking at instruments and interpreting them( which are vulnerable to statistical errors too).

You have no idea how I spend most of my days. But you will assume, and that will be good enough for you. I spend some days reading through the literature and reading texts. I spend other days teaching (colleagues, interns, other interested scientists) or learning from colleagues. I take science short courses and professional short courses. I spend some days discussing science, projects, problems. I spend time trying to help other groups with problems they have. Roughly 25% of my time this year is spent with instrumentation. The only reason I've been spending a lot of time with instruments lately is because I'm bringing a few assays on line so that I can spend less time with them in the future. I work at an institute, not a mfg plant. This is another example of why blind human perception and interpretation is unreliable.

Baking is a science and people do it every day, but because you use specific instruments in a particular field you seem to have some other idea. The scientific method is not terrible complicated per se.

It's not complicated at all. It's just not always feasible.

Henry George is the best of proof on how elegantly simple the right observation can be over something like a diminishing utility curve. I would choose him first because he is the best example of the accurate observation over heavily mathematical faulty ones. It is strange that so famous a man in his time, compared to Plato, is nearly unknown today, with mere vestiges of his influences in the game of Monopoly.

Progress and Poverty by Henry George


My favorites are Adam Smith ( who helped me embarrass poor Redisca , but then Marx would have done so also since its almost central to his theme in the Communist manifesto i. e. merchant vs landed gentry. I am still mystified by her blarney in lieu of so well established an historical fact) and Ricardo( who was first to observe the essential economic concept of economic rent which was expanded upon by Henry George).

Though these days you have to account for how finance has redirected the economic surplus from ground rents and other monopolistic rents into interest payments. One thing I would note is a theory is as good as how well one can predict and explain.

Well, was I right back in 2008?

//www.city-data.com/forum/perso...see-irony.html


The only thing I can determine is that you have a notion of certainty in your field. But so do all of them. What you are talking about are procedures that are more prevalent in certain fields that more or less involve educated guesses. But that is just a matter of proportion and rather arbitrary in determination.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You're off the mark here and you appear to be entirely unaware of the potential for bias and how/why that matters. Your wine and acidity analogy is a perfect example. A seasoned wine enthusiast is not going to perceive the acidity of a fine red, as say, a 10 year old child. A pH electrode, OTOH, when calibrated with a known reference, is going to give you the correct pH every time. Your perception of acidity is dependent on your genetics, your age, and your health. Further, your perception of acidity is not something you can extrapolate to anyone or thing.

I knew you would say it. So your eyeballs are not subject to bias but your tongue is not? Baloney. A certified wine tester is going to absolutely determine acidity. You don't get it. You just can't seem to separate instrumentation from scientific method. I cannot help you make this leap but thus far you just don't get it.

On your PH meter did you account for hallucinations in reading it? Mis-calibration? Falsification? Blindness, near sightedness? All you did was pick one sense over another. And I can tell you 10 people will give me an absolute accuracy that a lemon is acidic by taking their collective measure as sour 100% of the time. You as a human still need to read your PH meter. Instrumentation or lack thereof has nothing to do with scientific method nothing. Oh no, only some oddball human's tongue can malfunction.

Another thing you fail to grasp. Administration is not done willy nilly. You may think it is because you have no experience or knowledge of the field, but it's a decade of investigation (typically) before anything is administered to a human. Even then it's riddled with challenges. And that's the problem with psych since the only experimental space that can take place is in and around humans. You cannot knowingly cause harm to people. Even if you were able to do such experiments I have no idea how that data could be generalized onto other humans. There are so many unknowns.

And you have the same problem in your field. You can't just experiment on humans with drugs.

I think it makes sense, but I don't know if you can grasp what I'm saying. I may not be communicating well enough. As I have been stating, if you're going to make a suggestion or give some kind of reasoning for an event, you need to be able to prove it.


I don't think so, but surprise me. Describe your experiment. I don't know how you're going to be able to prove that all of the herd drifted to the right because they all desired to live, or because some of them desired to live and the others just went along with the herd. And if you're able to design an experiment to prove that, I don't know how it can be used to predicted other human behaviors. It's doesn't seem feasible to me at all. Again, I'm really interested, so please share.

If I put people in and old hoplite phalanx , they would drift into their neighbor shield. We would observe it again and again. It would not predict other human behavior necessarily but I believe that we would establish a human tendency to drift as a scientifically repeatable fact. Now an individual like Captain America might spoil the party but with large populations its statistically insignificant. A 100 person phalanx is going to drift. I very much doubt the drug industry in their research is remarkably different in its approach to see a main effect in it drug reactions since it was the exact same thing in manufacturing which I also studied.

Statistics are certainly needed and useful tools. I'm not arguing that and you clearly note it's value. That doesn't change the fact that it's not scientific inquiry. It's a tool.


I'm not following. I'm not arguing that stats aren't used in science. My premise is that in psych's attempt to be a science it's become all about stats. At this point I think that's due to the lacking of robust experimental design. Look at a psych major's course load at any university and then look at a chem major's course load. You'll find maybe one statistics course for chem majors and 5-7 stat course for psych majors. Why do you think that is?

Simple. Its because there is much more complexity in the main effects that are trying to achieve. If they were studying pupil dialation they could almost ditch it because they would get near 100% results. A light in the eye contracts puplis is more or less a fact is it not? When there are many variables they have to statistically account for main effects not showing up. Someone who runs slower that day might have been sick and thus formula-X may have not done as well as formula-Y. So the when they do a study to a certain tolerance of say 95% certainty, that is the level you can trust the "better formula". The more variables, the more vulnerable you are to statistical variances, but statistical tools can recover or ameliorate the problem. But aspects of human behavior can be subject to these studies with high levels of accuracy depending on what it is.

You have no idea how I spend most of my days. But you will assume, and that will be good enough for you. I spend some days reading through the literature and reading texts. I spend other days teaching (colleagues, interns, other interested scientists) or learning from colleagues. I take science short courses and professional short courses. I spend some days discussing science, projects, problems. I spend time trying to help other groups with problems they have. Roughly 25% of my time this year is spent with instrumentation. The only reason I've been spending a lot of time with instruments lately is because I'm bringing a few assays on line so that I can spend less time with them in the future. I work at an institute, not a mfg plant. This is another example of why blind human perception and interpretation is unreliable.

I'd like to know what scientists use these days besides their 6 senses?



Thanks, I'll check it out.[/quote]

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

I knew you would say it. So your eyeballs are not subject to bias but your tongue is not? Baloney. A certified wine tester is going to absolutely determine acidity. You don't get it. You just can't seem to separate instrumentation from scientific method. I cannot help you make this leap but thus far you just don't get it.

I'm starting to think that you're pulling my leg. To start, these examples are addressing tools of measurement, not the scientific method. Although, we could generate a hypothesis and come up with an experiment. Give me any human on the planet, wine taster or not, sit him/her down and I will take an eye dropper and dispense 50uL of pH1, pH1.5, pH2, pH2.5, pH3, pH 3.5 in his/her mouth, on the arm, whatever, and I'll bet my house that s/he will be unable to distinguish the correct pH within +/- 0.5 units. I don't know why that even needs to be said.

On your PH meter did you account for hallucinations in reading it? Mis-calibration? Falsification? Blindness, near sightedness? All you did was pick one sense over another. And I can tell you 10 people will give me an absolute accuracy that a lemon is acidic by taking their collective measure as sour 100% of the time. You as a human still need to read your PH meter. Instrumentation or lack thereof has nothing to do with scientific method nothing. Oh no, only some oddball human's tongue can malfunction.

Mis-calibration? What is that supposed to mean? I can bring in 1000 people that will read the exact same measurement on a pH meter. Humans cannot do it. Is something about technology ruffling you now? Anyhow, whether or not 10 people know that lemons are acidic is meaningless. When you have a molecule with an acidic pKa at a specific pH and you need to know the percentage of ionized species at another pH, you need accurate readings.

When most people are driving down the highway and pass a cop they look to their speedometer rather than putting their finger in their mouths and sticking it out the window. The speedometer is going to give them the reading they are looking for. Geesh.

And you have the same problem in your field. You can't just experiment on humans with drugs.

Pharma cannot -just and does not -just. The foundation of pharma, to be clear, is physics, chemistry, human physiology, medical science really. Those are the sciences utilized in pharma. Is that the case in psych? To the extent where psych deals with neuro perhaps, but then it becomes neurobiology, neuro- et al.

If I put people in and old hoplite phalanx , they would drift into their neighbor shield. We would observe it again and again. It would not predict other human behavior necessarily but I believe that we would establish a human tendency to drift as a scientifically repeatable fact. Now an individual like Captain America might spoil the party but with large populations its statistically insignificant. A 100 person phalanx is going to drift. I very much doubt the drug industry in their research is remarkably different in its approach to see a main effect in it drug reactions since it was the exact same thing in manufacturing which I also studied.

Perhaps they would, but you're not accounting for the reasoning behind the behavior as you initially stated (survival). Understanding and accounting for why/how is addressed by mechanistic studies in pharma. So, keep expanding this and you may have something.

Simple. Its because there is much more complexity in the main effects that are trying to achieve. If they were studying pupil dialation they could almost ditch it because they would get near 100% results. A light in the eye contracts puplis is more or less a fact is it not? When there are many variables they have to statistically account for main effects not showing up. Someone who runs slower that day might have been sick and thus formula-X may have not done as well as formula-Y. So the when they do a study to a certain tolerance of say 95% certainty, that is the level you can trust the "better formula". The more variables, the more vulnerable you are to statistical variances, but statistical tools can recover or ameliorate the problem. But aspects of human behavior can be subject to these studies with high levels of accuracy depending on what it is.

Yep. There are going to be 100s, if not thousands, of variables that you will never account for in such a study. You'll never know because you cannot control the experiment. Unfortunately, no amount of statistics can account for that.

I'd like to know what scientists use these days besides their 6 senses?

Use for what, exactly? All senses are used as well as technology to see what we cannot. You did ignore the context of that part of the post. Hopefully, you'll stop and consider why.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I'm starting to think that you're pulling my leg. To start, these examples are addressing tools of measurement, not the scientific method. Although, we could generate a hypothesis and come up with an experiment. Give me any human on the planet, wine taster or not, sit him/her down and I will take an eye dropper and dispense 50uL of pH1, pH1.5, pH2, pH2.5, pH3, pH 3.5 in his/her mouth, on the arm, whatever, and I'll bet my house that s/he will be unable to distinguish the correct pH within +/- 0.5 units. I don't know why that even needs to be said.

I already told you it has nothing to do with the preciseness of measurement.What do you think I was saying here?

You are conflating the use of instruments to measure things that are not detectable by human senses. Using a spectrometer is like using a different eyeball. It does not differentiate between how we arrive at truths.

So now you are accusing me of confusing instrumentation with the scientific method? If you had a PH meter 100X as accurate as another it does not change a thing. People know what sour is without a PH tester. I could easily find 100 people who could tell PH neutral water from lemon juice. It would be as accurate as you eyeball. And its you who keeps bring up the gear, not me.

Mis-calibration? What is that supposed to mean? I can bring in 1000 people that will read the exact same measurement on a pH meter. Humans cannot do it. Is something about technology ruffling you now? Anyhow, whether or not 10 people know that lemons are acidic is meaningless. When you have a molecule with an acidic pKa at a specific pH and you need to know the percentage of ionized species at another pH, you need accurate readings.

What do molecules have to do with the scientific method? The scale is irrelevant. I am finding it difficult to believe you know how to isolate concepts let alone engage in science enough to determine what science even is? Why do you keep bring up the irrelevancies of scale? Obviously if you are looking at things not visible to the human eye you will need a precise tool. Or if a slight PH is required, you will need a tool, but it only has to do with what you are studying.

When most people are driving down the highway and pass a cop they look to their speedometer rather than putting their finger in their mouths and sticking it out the window. The speedometer is going to give them the reading they are looking for. Geesh.

A pointless comment that means you don't get it. Speaking of that here is your useless soft science at work....saving lives.


How Should Speed Limits Be Set?

Pharma cannot -just and does not -just. The foundation of pharma, to be clear, is physics, chemistry, human physiology, medical science really. Those are the sciences utilized in pharma. Is that the case in psych? To the extent where psych deals with neuro perhaps, but then it becomes neurobiology, neuro- et al.

Its exactly the same. The foundation of fact in "soft sciences" are established facts.

Not all humans are the same physiologically so you are 100% full of crap. They don't respond to chemicals in the exact same way so you are a soft science. Thats why you get recalls. Medical "science" has scientific methods involved but its still in doubt because all control cannot be had.

Let me tell you how it works in a real hard science like computer science who has a god, unlike your industry, called boolean algebra. The accuracy of your PH levels are a joke compared to the complete accuracy that can be established.

I could have a simple indexing algorithm that sorts alphabetically. Is a simple sequential scan the best algorithm? I immediately know no since I could tune it not to look at a second letter when getting Q. I could also convert it to sort known data sets and structures much faster. What if I had a class full of people with last names of Z? Kind of stupid to start A to Z. With know data sets, I have known sorting optimizations.

So where does statistics come in? What if I had an off day and noticed that it was slower? If I statistically looked at the data and saw 3 hits on A, meaning it scanned z-b first, I could see that my algorithm just ran into data it was not tuned to handle. Now what if I didn't know this? I can still trust statistical anomalies don't disprove the efficacy of the algorithm for which it was designed. Thus I can say the algorithm is true despite data points that don't fit. Why? because when ever I don't have a population of data and have a sample, I am always going to deal with variances that I did not and cannot control, just like you.

That's why abused psychological studies on large groups are not valid on the very special individual women in this forum, but are more or less statistical throw aways for more general truths that exist in populations. So in other words, a change in scale makes something true where at another scale, it isn't just like if I had one person with a last name starting with A in a class full of Zs. It does not disprove the population metric.

Another real world example of the transition from a correlation that exists to what is essentially a fact could be a test scores.


Professor leaves study guides on a pile on his desk and sees scores improve. Some years show a major effect while other a less of an effect. Lets pretend to find out what happened. Two facts are established in the inquiry. There were 25 guides made available and some students were on an exchange program.

year 1: 20 students + 1 exchange
year 2: 30 + 3 exchange
year 3: etc....

So to determine the effect of the study guide more scientifically we could:
* make sure there are no exchange students
* make sure everyone has a guide
* make sure everyone can read
* use a control group with no study guide.

So do you really think we cannot scientifically validate improved test scores? You think we cannot statistically account for uncontrolled variables beyond our control(the reason why they use inferential statistics) like sickness or a meteor shower?

What are our underlying facts?

* People can see with proper light levels to read
* changes are made in peoples brain because after reading one line in the study guide they can read it back
* etc etc.

What's the difference? You have yet to coherently explain it.

Perhaps they would, but you're not accounting for the reasoning behind the behavior as you initially stated (survival). Understanding and accounting for why/how is addressed by mechanistic studies in pharma. So, keep expanding this and you may have something.

Yep. There are going to be 100s, if not thousands, of variables that you will never account for in such a study. You'll never know because you cannot control the experiment. Unfortunately, no amount of statistics can account for that.

Yep, you are so full of crap.And what study? Like do people prefer Coke or Pepsi in a given city? I could come up with a decent coefficient with a 100 people in a city of 100k. You have no idea how soft science works. The mere mention of psychoanalysis really told me all I needed to know , that you don't know. You did not take any clinical studies. You couldn't have. Wonder how Zogby polls guess right nearly every time with a sliver of the population.


All this so you can dismiss some PUA who abuses evo-psych.....

[wordlife]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Henry George is the best of proof on how elegantly simple the right observation can be over something like a diminishing utility curve. I would choose him first because he is the best example of the accurate observation over heavily mathematical faulty ones. It is strange that so famous a man in his time, compared to Plato, is nearly unknown today, with mere vestiges of his influences in the game of Monopoly.

Progress and Poverty by Henry George


My favorites are Adam Smith ( who helped me embarrass poor Redisca , but then Marx would have done so also since its almost central to his theme in the Communist manifesto i. e. merchant vs landed gentry. I am still mystified by her blarney in lieu of so well established an historical fact) and Ricardo( who was first to observe the essential economic concept of economic rent which was expanded upon by Henry George).

You get an immense +1 for mentioning Henry George, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this debate.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

I already told you it has nothing to do with the preciseness of measurement.What do you think I was saying here?

You are conflating the use of instruments to measure things that are not detectable by human senses. Using a spectrometer is like using a different eyeball. It does not differentiate between how we arrive at truths.

Precision absolutely matters. The human senses are limited and you will not arrive at any truth if the information is not available to you.

So now you are accusing me of confusing instrumentation with the scientific method? If you had a PH meter 100X as accurate as another it does not change a thing. People know what sour is without a PH tester. I could easily find 100 people who could tell PH neutral water from lemon juice. It would be as accurate as you eyeball. And its you who keeps bring up the gear, not me.

The information you're referring to, tho, does not hold value for the experiment presented. OTOH, if you're goal is to determine whether or not you enjoy the taste of an acidic beverage, then it's appropriate. For what I require, tho, it's pointless and unproductive. To me, it's a scientifically moot point.

What do molecules have to do with the scientific method? The scale is irrelevant. I am finding it difficult to believe you know how to isolate concepts let alone engage in science enough to determine what science even is? Why do you keep bring up the irrelevancies of scale? Obviously if you are looking at things not visible to the human eye you will need a precise tool. Or if a slight PH is required, you will need a tool, but it only has to do with what you are studying.

I am using specific examples for application, for the ease of understanding. You are using none, and are attempting to direct me into using none, because application is outside the scope of your argument and psychology in general. This is the same type of thinking as clinging to stats rather than holding onto something tangible.

A pointless comment that means you don't get it. Speaking of that here is your useless soft science at work....saving lives.

Its exactly the same. The foundation of fact in "soft sciences" are established facts.

You don't get it. You want to argue against the merit of precision tools, which is ridiculous. You want to argue against the merit of empirical inquiry. At this point you're just throwing darts in the dark hoping something will stick, but I don't see that happening.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that humans need a field called the soft sciences to culturally and socially organize for the benefit of community. We do not need to attend conferences or develop think tanks as to why speed limits are necessary. We do not need soft sciences to establish common sense.

Not all humans are the same physiologically so you are 100% full of crap.

Stop it with the transparent straw man. You will not be able to find a post where I suggest humans are the same. OTOH, you can go back and re-read this thread and I find me noting alleles and if you understand what an allele is then you know I cannot be under the assumption that humans are the same. I'm surprised that you're engaging in this kind of sour arguing, gwyn.

They don't respond to chemicals in the exact same way so you are a soft science. Thats why you get recalls. Medical "science" has scientific methods involved but its still in doubt because all control cannot be had.

The first sentence is just embarrassing to read. Really, stop being so goofy. I agree with the bolded, tho.

Let me tell you how it works in a real hard science like computer science who has a god, unlike your industry, called boolean algebra. The accuracy of your PH levels are a joke compared to the complete accuracy that can be established.

Your attempt to pit fields is irrational. I'm a chemist, gwyn. Your throwing stones at an industry, be it pharma or anything else, is at most amusing for a chuckle. You chose to attack precision tools for whatever bizarre reasons, which just adds to your overall argument- a multi-layered straw man.

So where does statistics come in? What if I had an off day and noticed that it was slower? If I statistically looked at the data and saw 3 hits on A, meaning it scanned z-b first, I could see that my algorithm just ran into data it was not tuned to handle. Now what if I didn't know this? I can still trust statistical anomalies don't disprove the efficacy of the algorithm for which it was designed. Thus I can say the algorithm is true despite data points that don't fit. Why? because when ever I don't have a population of data and have a sample, I am always going to deal with variances that I did not and cannot control, just like you.

Are you meaning an algorithm on a comp model? And you can run that exact same algorithm over and over and retrieve the same results, correct? Imagine if that weren't the case.

That's why abused psychological studies on large groups are not valid on the very special individual women in this forum, but are more or less statistical throw aways for more general truths that exist in populations. So in other words, a change in scale makes something true where at another scale, it isn't just like if I had one person with a last name starting with A in a class full of Zs. It does not disprove the population metric.

I don't know what you're saying here.

Another real world example of the transition from a correlation that exists to what is essentially a fact could be a test scores.

Professor leaves study guides on a pile on his desk and sees scores improve. Some years show a major effect while other a less of an effect. Lets pretend to find out what happened. Two facts are established in the inquiry. There were 25 guides made available and some students were on an exchange program.

year 1: 20 students + 1 exchange
year 2: 30 + 3 exchange
year 3: etc....

So to determine the effect of the study guide more scientifically we could:
* make sure there are no exchange students
* make sure everyone has a guide
* make sure everyone can read
* use a control group with no study guide.

So do you really think we cannot scientifically validate improved test scores? You think we cannot statistically account for uncontrolled variables beyond our control(the reason why they use inferential statistics) like sickness or a meteor shower?

What are our underlying facts?

I think this is a good example and great use of psychology. Variables can be controlled and confidence reached in conclusions. If this were the type of rubric used across the board, unlike evo-psych et al, there would be no argument from me regarding merit. I wouldn't entertain it as science, but it's useful.

* People can see with proper light levels to read
* changes are made in peoples brain because after reading one line in the study guide they can read it back
* etc etc.

What's the difference? You have yet to coherently explain it.


Yep, you are so full of crap.And what study? Like do people prefer Coke or Pepsi in a given city? I could come up with a decent coefficient with a 100 people in a city of 100k. You have no idea how soft science works. The mere mention of psychoanalysis really told me all I needed to know , that you don't know. You did not take any clinical studies. You couldn't have. Wonder how Zogby polls guess right nearly every time with a sliver of the population.

I'm full of crap and yet you are the one that leaps from study guides to the live driving forces in the brain to coke or pepsi. I don't know what taking clinical studies means.

What you have shown in your arguments in this thread really reflects the problems that the field faces. Wild leaps in logic that are all over the place. Some endeavors are useful, while others edge on lunacy.

All this so you can dismiss some PUA who abuses evo-psych.....

All this so you can reconcile why you chose a soft path. One typically taken by women.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Precision absolutely matters. The human senses are limited and you will not arrive at any truth if the information is not available to you.

Not when that is not what you are looking for. I don't need a micrometer to count people going through a turnstile. Again to the point of exhaustion, its the entity that is being tested.

The information you're referring to, tho, does not hold value for the experiment presented. OTOH, if you're goal is to determine whether or not you enjoy the taste of an acidic beverage, then it's appropriate. For what I require, tho, it's pointless and unproductive. To me, it's a scientifically moot point.

Nope. If all I need to know was a sour or acidic taste, 10 people are reliable enough at very high confidence intervals. What odds would you like? I'll offer you a 1000 to 1 on lemon juice vs water. I could use another buck. What is scientifically moot is this argument over scale having relevance. If I am looking for parts per million well then its just stupid to use an instrument that is not capable.

I am using specific examples for application, for the ease of understanding. You are using none, and are attempting to direct me into using none, because application is outside the scope of your argument and psychology in general. This is the same type of thinking as clinging to stats rather than holding onto something tangible.

None? I have given you study guides, traffic, lemon juice vs water and on an on. Its you who keeps dodging the issue.

You don't get it. You want to argue against the merit of precision tools, which is ridiculous. You want to argue against the merit of empirical inquiry. At this point you're just throwing darts in the dark hoping something will stick, but I don't see that happening.

You don't get it because you keep confusing measurement with the scientific method. If my goal is to sell drinks I can scientifically adapt my beverage. Thats what billions of dollars are spend on everyday absolute abusing and raping your absurd position. If 70% of the people like it its a verifiable scientific assertion of my sample which has a statistical confidence interval for the whole population. Now saying that because a majority likes the drink that an individual likes it is just a bad application of science. That's like reading a 1/100 of a PH for a PH meter rated to measure by 1/10. My Chemistry teacher used to rail on carrying over significant digits only.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that humans need a field called the soft sciences to culturally and socially organize for the benefit of community. We do not need to attend conferences or develop think tanks as to why speed limits are necessary. We do not need soft sciences to establish common sense.

Oh well then let the carnage commence on the highways. Sure we see the death rate increase when not using the 85% and businesses will lose money blindly hoping people like stuff. And collective human behavior is NOT common sense. I can't tell you how utterly baron a microeconomic preservative is when applied to macroeconomics. We have individual and collective conflicts all the time. Ever look into the prisoner dilemma and game theory?

Stop it with the transparent straw man. You will not be able to find a post where I suggest humans are the same. OTOH, you can go back and re-read this thread and I find me noting alleles and if you understand what an allele is then you know I cannot be under the assumption that humans are the same. I'm surprised that you're engaging in this kind of sour arguing, gwyn.

You started it. You keep telling me humans are not the same in psychology studies and throw your hand up which is an implication you don't have the same problem. You did again with the ethical problem which again is a problem you have.

The first sentence is just embarrassing to read. Really, stop being so goofy. I agree with the bolded, tho.

Right back at you. Clinical psychological studies are just as much hard a science as yours.

Your attempt to pit fields is irrational. I'm a chemist, gwyn. Your throwing stones at an industry, be it pharma or anything else, is at most amusing for a chuckle. You chose to attack precision tools for whatever bizarre reasons, which just adds to your overall argument- a multi-layered straw man.

You are the one who threw the first stone. You said this:

You are blinded by your own bias and obvious attachment to whatever beliefs you have going. The issue is not with investigating behavior and social sciences. The issue is with the attempt to correlate a soft and potential pseudo-science with a hard science (evolutionary biology) to give it credibility for reasons A-Z. I don't know why that chaps your ass since none of your charges above apply (to me at least).

And its completely wrong. And yet you agree with the over turning of this study using scientific methods . That some joker in a velvet suit is going to apply fruit flys to human behavior directly is irrelevant. And that you find other species to be completely irrelevant is a strange way to appreaciate "maleness" in isolation. It doesn't prove anything but it sure can lead to a hypothesis which can be tested scientifically.

Are you meaning an algorithm on a comp model? And you can run that exact same algorithm over and over and retrieve the same results, correct? Imagine if that weren't the case.

Do you know why that is? Its related to statistics. You know what the difference is between an analog tool and a digital one? An analog in computer science is the detection of a change in physical state. The most precise level is not desirable since, as an analog its a translation mechanism meant to precipitate something else. I just want to to process the algorithm and ditch anomalies. Its like a smoke signal. The exact amount of smoke doesn't matter. In my digital electronic class we had 5 volt circuits. Even if something went wrong and I had 1 volt the bit would be considered off. 4.8 volts will still see the bit as on. The only thing that would cause a problem is the forbidden range like 2.5 volts.

So because I sacrificed precision for reliability, I have effectively 100% reliability for my result. See any relation to determining the favorite temperature most people like for drinking water? If my goal is the majority given my resources I do not need the precision of the individual. Its not useful for me if I only have the resources to maintain one temperature. Once you correct for scale, isolation, repeatability, is all the same. Any different than lactase pills which would be a rather different market in Lithuania vs Japan? Not one bit.

I think this is a good example and great use of psychology. Variables can be controlled and confidence reached in conclusions. If this were the type of rubric used across the board, unlike evo-psych et al, there would be no argument from me regarding merit. I wouldn't entertain it as science, but it's useful.

It science, sorry. It uses the exact same methods, the end, no ifs, ands, or rebuttals. A study that appeals to evo-psych has no bearing on the results of a test.

Women prefer men desired by others | COSMOS magazine

You just don't like it.

I'm full of crap and yet you are the one that leaps from study guides to the live driving forces in the brain to coke or pepsi. I don't know what taking clinical studies means.

You say you took psychology but you could not possibly have been exposed to clinical psychology. Like I said, mentioning psychoanalysis which is basically a branch of psychology that lieve in the realms of conjecture is like saying a group of people you know nothing about will like one recreational drug over another. It has nothing to do with the science elements of the field.

What you have shown in your arguments in this thread really reflects the problems that the field faces. Wild leaps in logic that are all over the place. Some endeavors are useful, while others edge on lunacy.

All this so you can reconcile why you chose a soft path. One typically taken by women.

I didn't. My employment is in a hard science and I was educated as such in computer science not to mention some engineering and business( I dropped out of MBA school to pursue computer science so sue me). Liberal arts with a hard science is still, as far as I am concerned, the best education you can have. Thats why, to be perfectly honest, a lot of hard science people are some of the dumbest people I know. I remember my roommate going through Cobol and Assembler dumps while I learned research methods and statistics. Good luck with that now buddy. You need to have critical thinking in how to apply knowledge. Many geeky, factoid machines have no clue.