Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you see Psychology as a Science?
  • Subject: Do you see Psychology as a Science?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Do you see Psychology as a Science?

This world wants to drag you down... And the weight, that guilt they want to hang around your neck, you don’t have to carry it one more step. You think they won’t let you rest, but it’s not up to them. It never was.

Biology is clearly the hardest science because erections.

/plebianlogic

  • 01.07.2013 11:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Dredd

Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: Dredd
Probably the most pointless branch of science right now.

"Pointless" is the most inappropriate word that can be used when describing astronomy. Research in the field of astrophysics and any form of spacial science has direct application to current technological goals and advances here on Earth. Humanity has benefited an enormous amount from NASA, because a large amount of the technology used by such organizations are very useful back on Earth, or lead to very important advances.

You clearly don't understand the difference between astronomy and engineering. The creations of NASA is by no means a product derived from astronomy but from engineering practices and innovation. What you're trying to argue is that astronomy is the motivation behind NASA engineering, which does nothing to invalidate my previous claim. And the contributions of astrophysics pales in comparison to Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Astrophysics is based on practical physics to begin with. But nice attempt to make it appear like you know what you're talking about.


The problem is that Winy does know what he is talking about.

Astronomy is a broad category that part of Newtonian Physics (Classical Mechanics) fall under.

  • 01.07.2013 11:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Recon Number 54
It attempts to use scientific principles, but it is attempting to apply them to human mental/social/emotional issues and so, will never get to the level of consistent reproducability.

Just like medicine is "practiced", Psychology is the attempt to understand how our minds function. Since we are not binary, nor are we consistent, the "science" will likely never reach the ability to reliably predict the actions/reaction/behavior of a specific individual or event.

In its own way, Psychology has it's own "Uncertainty Principle" that can never be resolved. Even probability is not going to be a reliable method when attempting to diagnose or treat individuals.


There are many psychological experiments that have consistent, reproducible results.

Agreed. I don't dispute that. But the ability to predict "if this, then that" at a level of an individual is due to have outliers.

I am saying that the subject matter (the human brain/mind) makes the outcomes less than 100% reliable, not that the practice or methods are "un-scientific" or improper.

  • 01.07.2013 11:50 AM PDT


Posted by: ErranInfigo

Posted by: Dredd

Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: Dredd
Probably the most pointless branch of science right now.

"Pointless" is the most inappropriate word that can be used when describing astronomy. Research in the field of astrophysics and any form of spacial science has direct application to current technological goals and advances here on Earth. Humanity has benefited an enormous amount from NASA, because a large amount of the technology used by such organizations are very useful back on Earth, or lead to very important advances.

You clearly don't understand the difference between astronomy and engineering. The creations of NASA is by no means a product derived from astronomy but from engineering practices and innovation. What you're trying to argue is that astronomy is the motivation behind NASA engineering, which does nothing to invalidate my previous claim. And the contributions of astrophysics pales in comparison to Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Astrophysics is based on practical physics to begin with. But nice attempt to make it appear like you know what you're talking about.


The problem is that Winy does know what he is talking about.

Astronomy is a broad category that part of Newtonian Physics (Classical Mechanics) fall under.

Which I clearly just stated in my post. Try rereading it.

  • 01.07.2013 11:51 AM PDT


Posted by: Recon Number 54

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Recon Number 54
It attempts to use scientific principles, but it is attempting to apply them to human mental/social/emotional issues and so, will never get to the level of consistent reproducability.

Just like medicine is "practiced", Psychology is the attempt to understand how our minds function. Since we are not binary, nor are we consistent, the "science" will likely never reach the ability to reliably predict the actions/reaction/behavior of a specific individual or event.

In its own way, Psychology has it's own "Uncertainty Principle" that can never be resolved. Even probability is not going to be a reliable method when attempting to diagnose or treat individuals.


There are many psychological experiments that have consistent, reproducible results.

Agreed. I don't dispute that. But the ability to predict "if this, then that" at a level of an individual is due to have outliers.

I am saying that the subject matter (the human brain/mind) makes the outcomes less than 100% reliable, not that the practice or methods are "un-scientific" or improper.


If we're talking about generalizations that psychology makes, then yes, you're right. But people can be studied as individuals and we can find out how to predict or control the behavior of those individuals.

  • 01.07.2013 11:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: culexus

Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA


Let me guess, a Physics elitist?


Relevant XKCD

  • 01.07.2013 11:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Lifts Her Tail

Posted by: culexus

Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA


Let me guess, a Physics elitist?


Relevant XKCD


Wow, that makes all of them look stupid.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 11:55 AM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 11:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: Dredd
You clearly don't understand the difference between astronomy and engineering.

Actually, I completely understand the distinction, because it's so obvious. Inspiration to do work regarding astronomy has indeed provided relevant contributions to technology at the moment as a motivational factor, and whether or not you value expansive knowledge of the cosmos and its history (Which I feel most people at least should hold some appreciation for), it's not easily deniable.

The creations of NASA is by no means a product derived from astronomy but from engineering practices and innovation. What you're trying to argue is that astronomy is the motivation behind NASA engineering, which does nothing to invalidate my previous claim.
While NASA's works is almost exclusively aeronautics, the driving force behind its innovation is development of tools and research that can both gather more knowledge about the cosmos and apply technology used during such research back on Earth. It's killing two birds with one stone.

And the contributions of astrophysics pales in comparison to Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Astrophysics is based on practical physics to begin with. But nice attempt to make it appear like you know what you're talking about.
I was never arguing it held greater significance than the fields you just listed? There's quite a bit of valuable knowledge that provides a hell of a lot of inspiration to pursue physics and engineering careers for a lot of people, which I appreciate. And then there's always the alternative of acting like a complete jerk while countering somebody, that ought to earn you respect.

  • 01.07.2013 11:55 AM PDT

in·dif·fer·ence
the fact or state of being indifferent; lack of care or concern and empathy demonstrated by an absence of emotional reactions.


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was an atrociously foolish statement.

  • 01.07.2013 11:58 AM PDT

The bible is the best book Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM A PROUD CHRISTIAN. HALO IS AWESOME BUT GOD IS MUCH BETTER!!!!!!!!
Did you knew that JESUSdied for you?

A bungie employee has spoke ergo herreies the tru7h. /thread.

  • 01.07.2013 11:59 AM PDT

Octavia is best pony.


Posted by: Haloroach

Posted by: IslocStarkiller

Posted by: culexus

Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA


Let me guess, a Physics elitist?


Paleontology for the win!



OT: Yes.

  • 01.07.2013 12:00 PM PDT

Stop banning me please.

Yes

  • 01.07.2013 12:00 PM PDT

Stop banning me please.

actually nvm

[Edited on 01.07.2013 12:01 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 12:01 PM PDT


Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: culexus
Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let me guess, a Physics elitist?

I'll let my cat answer that one.


Haha Schrodinger's cat.

  • 01.07.2013 12:01 PM PDT

Allons-y!

I'm laughing at the people who say that it's not because it has no set probability. What about quantum mechanics?

  • 01.07.2013 12:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Keir F
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Dredd

Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: Dredd
Probably the most pointless branch of science right now.

"Pointless" is the most inappropriate word that can be used when describing astronomy. Research in the field of astrophysics and any form of spacial science has direct application to current technological goals and advances here on Earth. Humanity has benefited an enormous amount from NASA, because a large amount of the technology used by such organizations are very useful back on Earth, or lead to very important advances.

You clearly don't understand the difference between astronomy and engineering. The creations of NASA is by no means a product derived from astronomy but from engineering practices and innovation. What you're trying to argue is that astronomy is the motivation behind NASA engineering, which does nothing to invalidate my previous claim. And the contributions of astrophysics pales in comparison to Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Astrophysics is based on practical physics to begin with. But nice attempt to make it appear like you know what you're talking about.

Let's make a distinction between "Astronomy" and "Astrophysics" here. To claim any field of science is pointless is quite frankly, wrong. Astrophysics covers such a huge slice of Physics, to claim its contributions "pale in comparison" to Newtonian physics (since disproved), relativity (a branch of Astrophysics) and quantum mechanics (again, covered by Astrophysics) shows a distinct lack of understanding on your part. Astrophysics covers mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear and particle physics, and atomic and molecular physics. To claim that Astrophysics is pointless is to claim that each and every one of these fields is also pointless.
And what can be said of the discoveries made by Astrophysicists? Much of our modern understanding of radiation comes directly from the study of the cosmos. Contributions have also been made in the fields of Biology, geology and meteorology: studying conditions on exoplanets has led to an increased understanding of how conditions on Earth developed, everything from early life, atmospheres, mountains, weather systems - all have Astrophysics to thank for huge developments.
You are correct to say that NASA's innovations are not the product of Astronomy, but rather Astrophysics. Many of the defining principles of gravitation (which allow for the complex calculations around rocket launches and orbits) came as a direct result of applying General Relativity to the formulae derived from the study of the orbits of planets, asteroids and comets.

*End of rant* I don't mean to offend anyone, and I don't want to sound angry or condescending or any of that Jazz. It just really rustles my jimmies when people slag off branches of science.

Can't we just all get along? :P

[Edited on 01.07.2013 12:09 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 12:05 PM PDT

Wheres Meh Sniper?

Youtube page

Yup it counts as a science to me. I hate science.

  • 01.07.2013 12:05 PM PDT


Posted by: WinyPit82
I want to make it clear that I am not being a jerk. I think you're being to sensitive. Also, I don't think you understand my viewpoint. I do value astronomy to some extent, however it holds less value than other natural sciences in my opinion. What I'm saying is that astronomy has not actually produced anything of great importance. Astronomy has motivated people strive for certain innovations to observe the stars, like you said, but the actual science itself has not provided a lot of valuable knowledge that we can apply on earth.

  • 01.07.2013 12:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Want to piss off a Psychiatrist?

Tell them that "We keep trying different drugs in different dosages and combinations in order to try to get a desired result. This seems a bit like alchemy with all of this trial and error."

  • 01.07.2013 12:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: Dredd
however it holds less value than other natural sciences in my opinion.

I don't discredit that opinion. I agree.

What I'm saying is that astronomy has not actually produced anything of great importance. Astronomy has motivated people strive for certain innovations to observe the stars, like you said, but the actual science itself has not provided a lot of valuable knowledge that we can apply on earth.
See a few posts above.

  • 01.07.2013 12:08 PM PDT

Per Audacia Ad Astra

Posted by: DrBunsenHoneydew
Yes.

  • 01.07.2013 12:09 PM PDT

Play. Forge. Film.


Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: culexus
Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let me guess, a Physics elitist?

I'll let my cat answer that one.


Awwwwww snap!! Anyways, yes, I consider it a branch of science.

  • 01.07.2013 12:10 PM PDT


Posted by: Kvaener
Let's make a distinction between "Astronomy" and "Astrophysics" here. To claim any field of science is pointless is quite frankly, wrong. Astrophysics covers such a huge slice of Physics, to claim its contributions "pale in comparison" to Newtonian physics (since disproved), relativity (a branch of Astrophysics) and quantum mechanics (again, covered by Astrophysics) shows a distinct lack of understanding on your part. Astrophysics covers mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear and particle physics, and atomic and molecular physics. To claim that Astrophysics is pointless is to claim that each and every one of these fields is also pointless.
And what can be said of the discoveries made by Astrophysicists? Much of our modern understanding of radiation comes directly from the study of the cosmos. Contributions have also been made in the fields of Biology, geology and meteorology: studying conditions on exoplanets has led to an increased understanding of how conditions on Earth developed, everything from early life, atmospheres, mountains, weather systems - all have Astrophysics to thank for huge developments.
You are correct to say that NASA's innovations are not the product of Astronomy, but rather Astrophysics. Many of the defining principles of gravitation (which allow for the complex calculations around rocket launches and orbits) came as a direct result of applying General Relativity to the formulae derived from the study of the orbits of planets, asteroids and comets.

As I believe you said: "nice attempt to make it appear like you know what you're talking about."

*End of rant* I don't mean to offend anyone, and I don't want to sound angry or condescending or any of that Jazz. It just really rustles my jimmies when people slag off branches of science.

Can't we just all get along? :P

There's a misunderstanding. I didn't say that astrophysics paled in comparison to most science, I was saying that astronomy did. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

  • 01.07.2013 12:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: Dredd
There's a misunderstanding. I didn't say that astrophysics paled in comparison to most science, I was saying that astronomy did. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

I classify astronomy and astrophysics as entirely intertwined fields. The most basic definition of "astronomy" is simply the study of celestial objects, under which astrophysics resides. When I speak of astronomy, I am speaking of all sub categorical works, including cosmology, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics. So then this entire damn conflict is rooting in semantics, it seems.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 12:12 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 12:12 PM PDT

Blah blah blah


Posted by: annoyinginge
> Real science
> Biology

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'd like to see you major in Biochemistry and tell me its easy.

  • 01.07.2013 12:13 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4