Space Babe

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Space Babe

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

479 profile views
  1. Space Babe

    why we still belive in a god

    I think that there are two main reasons why certain people still believe in god; The first reason is due to the assumption that humans are acataleptic by nature, meaning that they are facing with the real or apparent impossibility to arrive at certain knowledge or full comprehension. This being said, believers will always try to fill their lack of knowledge and understanding to a supernatural force beyond them and their existence. This is also known by the term "God of the Gaps". The second reason is mortality salience, that is, the fear of mortality and death. That is why humans would rather live their whole life believing in a beautiful lie, than facing the ugly truth and harsh reality. I would also presume that besides fear, people are narcissists - as the self-claimed most intelligent creatures living on this planet, it is almost non acceptable for them to think that their end will be the same as the other animals, whom they consider as inferior. However, this is just my personal opinion and I don't mean to offend anyone with this comment.
  2. Space Babe

    "Linguistics is not a real science!"

    Originally, there are two major divisions of science - Natural sciences and Social sciences; Natural sciences are disciplines designed to predict and explain events that occur in our natural environment (Physics, Biology, Chemistry...), while Social sciences are usually fields of academic scholarship which explore aspects of human society (law, history, sociology...). From this, it is clear enough to state that natural sciences study the psychical world, and social sciences study human behavior. This being said, we can easily decide in which category does Linguistics fall; Linguistics is known as the scientific study of language and its form, meaning and structure, including the study of grammar, syntax and phonetics. However, Linguistics is a rather vast field of study and it can be divided in specific branches, such as psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, etc. According to this official and standard definition, Linguistics seems to fall under the category of Social sciences - since it studies a certain aspect of human behavior. However, linguistics tends to have different aspects of which some of those aspects belong to natural sciences, while others belong to social sciences. For instance, the aspects of linguistics that are related to natural sciences are neurolinguistics or biolinguistics. I think that this mix does not make linguistics and entirely social science, nor an entirely natural science, making it an interdisciplinary subject. But the fact that linguistics not being an entirely social science is not the problem here. The problem is the attitude that people have towards the two main divisions of science; Namely, the majority of people don't really value social sciences as much as natural sciences. And since most people put linguistics under the category of social sciences, they tend to automatically doubts its scientific credibility. But, i don't completely blame them, as they might have a good reason for their opinion. Another important argument as to why some sciences or disciplines of study may not be considered as "real sciences", and that has nothing to do with the fact that one particular science is considered as social or natural; A scientific study must have a valid approach and methodology, based on strong evidence, and not some claims or theories that cannot be subjected to an observational state. And only when these standards are met and achieved, the field of study that is in question can be considered as a real science that has some sort of validity in the overall scientific community.
  3. Space Babe

    Modeling the different fields of study

    R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, Chaps.1,2,&3.
  4. Space Babe

    how people act online versus irl

    @nevim I am positively surprised of your impression about my comments, and I appreciate that very much. Especially since I am a newer member on this amazing forum... Thank you
  5. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    I agree and as I have previously mentioned, for instance, Freud is responsible for coining the terms id, ego, superego in the first place. A lot of people still use these terms in their papers, as they still consider them to be relevant and possibly valued in the field of psychology.
  6. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    That is very true. I think that the very relevant question many people ask themselves is why Freud is still considered as relevant and important, even though the scientific community claims that his theories are invalid. Freud still matters and is associated with the science of psychology because without him it is believed that humans would not have any conceptions of psychology whatsoever. He is still very popular, maybe because some of his concepts were considered as taboo, but also because our personality and behavior, according to him, is mostly biologically explained.
  7. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    Yes, thank you for the explanation. I mentioned that theories are not equal to proved evidence mainly because Freud's theories have not been properly proved as valid, at least from a scientific point of view. In fact, it is even taken in question if any ideas that Freud had are still relevant in the present. In other words, maybe I should have been more clear saying that most psychological theories are not considered as valid due to the fact that others find them hard do conduct observational experiments upon their claims. I apologize for any misunderstandings...
  8. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    Exactly. I said that theories are not equal to proved evidence because I was mainly referring to the fact that Freud's theories have not been properly proved as valid, at least from a scientific point of view. Either that or someone should try and test them from a different approach, but that would still be considered as a valid evidence. I remember how one of my professors said that without Freud, we would still be in a psychological dark age, since he first suggested that humans have a subconscious, the notion of a mental aspect, that he coined the terms "ego, superego, id" which are still used today (although some people disagree with these terms as well). I think that she was trying to say that although Freud may have been wrong about most things, she believed that he correctly guessed some fundamental understandings about human behavior and thinking. Perhaps, yes. It is also worth mentioning that Freud, as well as other famous psychologists, usually came up with some pretty bizarre concepts such as "Penis Envy" or "Womb Envy". This is due to the fact that they worked during an era in which sexual repression was very characteristic. From this we could say that the majority of these theories were biased and subjective, of course, according to the mentality that was manifested in the society where they lived, worked and practiced.
  9. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    Of course, I agree with your opinion. Every science must be based on strong evidence. So far, Freud's work mostly relies on his psychoanalysis and theories. And theories are not equal to proved evidence. I wonder if there is even a possibility or method to confirm his psychological theories as valid? Maybe through analyses or conducted experiments? Because, as far as I know, Freudian theories about the brain and mind were never scientifically validated. However, with this, I am not saying that his work isn't interesting or not worth reading. But on the other hand, I imagine that it would be difficult to analyze his theories from a scientific point of view, mainly because they cannot be easily subjected to an observational state.
  10. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    Yes, I agree with your opinion. My point, however, was that psychology, at least according to my opinion, cannot simply be discarded for "not being a real science". I have this impression that the majority of people don't really value social sciences as much as natural sciences. And since this topic is specifically about doubting the scientific credibility of psychology, I personally don't think that it's fair to not consider it as real science, just because it mainly focuses on human behavior, when in reality, natural sciences such as biology and neuroscience, have a direct or indirect impact upon it. I am sure that almost everyone are familiar with (transorbital) lobotomy, which starting in the 30's, was conducted upon patients who suffered from psychological/psychiatric disorders. Without getting into too much detail, lobotomy was considered as one of the methods to cure these psychological/psychiatric disorders by entering the field of neuroscience, as a neurosurgical treatment (by approaching the frontal lobes of the human brain). With this example, I am only trying to emphasize that psychology cannot be considered as "not a real science" just because most people think it's a social science, when practice shows that there is a relevant aspect of it linked to some of the familiar natural sciences as well. And without that aspect, psychology would not be a complete science, as we usually know it.
  11. Space Babe

    Is Psychology not a real science?

    There are two major divisions of science. We have natural sciences and social sciences. Natural sciences are disciplines designed to predict and explain events that occur in our natural environment (Physics, Biology, Chemistry...) On the other hand, social sciences are usually fields of academic scholarship which explore aspects of human society (law, history, sociology...) While natural sciences study the psychical world, social sciences study human behavior. Psychology represents the science which subject of study is the psychological/psychiatric life of humans. And that psychological aspect of life comes and is developed from the brain, while manifested by a large number of psychological notions. Every reaction and behavior of humans is studied and is directly or indirectly linked to the various methods of how one's mind functions. Now, my opinion here is that, while psychology mainly studies human behavior (making it fall in the category of social sciences), it is still known that the psychological aspect of our way of thinking and reacting, is influenced by the condition of the brain and its parts, such as the frontal lobe, the central nerve system, neurons...In other words, the main organs that are responsible for the development of the psychological life of humans are the nervous system and receptors (making it fall in the category of natural sciences, or biology, to be more specific). According to this, I would say that psychology is a little bit of both, as it can't be defined entirely as a social science, nor entirely as a natural science. However, I personally consider and admit that psychology definitely is a real science, containing social and naturals aspects of study.
  12. Space Babe

    how people act online versus irl

    I think I've previously mentioned that I wrote an article that was recently published in a scientific journal, regarding to a critical analysis of Charles Cooley's theory "Looking Glass Self" (1902), where I also mention the virtual world and people's various behavior based on their status in the real world. However, It would be very interesting to actually conduct a research and possibly write a paper about this topic as well. Thank you so much for your recommendations, since I am not really a gamer girl and I don't have much knowledge about games... I completely agree with the last sentence of your comment about escaping the real world; But I must say that every person is "escaping" from the real world and that does not have to necessarily mean into the virtual world. In other words, people often escape in their psychological world, were everything is an illusion, but they want to believe those illusions are a reality, trying to act like that in the real world. Here, rationality is sometimes an exception, as most of people's psychological illusions are not realistic or easily achievable for them. Reality is often cruel, and in order for humans to cope with that, they have this habit of turning reality into an illusion, and vice versa. Although it is physically impossible to escape from reality as a concept of existence, people often mistaken their psychology as a different world, and that is not correct because psychology comes and is developed in our brain, and our brain is an essential part of our body which allows our existence on this planet in the first place. Still, even when a person manifests and lives in a perfect illusion of his own creation, there is some conscious present at the back of his head, a consciousness that simply cannot be fooled with lies and self-manipulation. That is often that tiny voice which gives the person a dose of reality in order for him to not get carried away by his illusions and start acting like that in the real world. Thank you, nevim I complete agree with you, as I also don't have tendencies to use social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter... My intention is not to offend anyone who uses social media, however my personal opinion is that they are a waste of time and have a very negative influence upon one person's self-image and confidence. In other words, I view social media as unrealistic worlds that are filled with illusions, which make people to often mistaken them as a reality.
  13. Space Babe

    how people act online versus irl

    I agree with your opinion, in general. It is undeniably true that the real world cannot be equally compared with the virtual world. There are many factors that influence our behavior and image that we display online. When it comes to creating an image in the virtual world, the option of showing our true self is not the only possibility. On the contrary, it can also represent a chance for a person to manifest his ideal self - similar to an alter ego; A person can decide to manifest his ideal self in the virtual world in order to either create a false impression of someone who he is not, or to satisfy the perfect illusion that other people have of him. Either way, it shows us that sometimes, when a person wants to be a better version of himself, but cannot achieve it from various reasons, he is willing to use the possibilities of the virtual profiles to lie himself and others that he has, subconsciously achieved his ideal self, which in reality is not true. When it comes to your example about the aggressive gamer, that is very different than a profile on social media where everyone can see the false or real image you put on display in the virtual reality. In a virtual game, there are no profiles of the gamer's life, but just his method of playing, which by the way, is also manifested or performed by all the other gamers in the game - because that is how you beat the game and beating the game is the main goal of the gamers. A gamer cannot act the same as a popular Instagram model, simply because their profiles are created for different purposes - and with that, they both act differently. However, there might be a similarity in all of this, and the answer lies in the final goal that the person wants to achieve; Namely, the Instagram model presents a perfect life in the virtual world and is influencing other people to be just like her. If there is a girl who is not popular and insecure, and she wants to change all that, will see what it takes (or at least what she thinks) to become popular and loved. In other words, she will try to act like the Instagram model. In the other hand, we have a gamer who is playing an aggressive game and has the highest scores, always beating the game. He, directly or indirectly, influences the other gamers to play similar to him in order to get better at the game. So, if we have a gamer who is not very good at the game (he is slower, doesn't want to "kill" his fellow players), he will soon notice the best gamer and will try to act and play aggressively, just like him in order to achieve a higher score.
  14. Space Babe

    Why is war morally wrong?

    I agree that war does not manifest the urge to kill alone - that is due to the fact that humans live in a sophisticated society that is far more evolved and advances than the survival laws of nature where the other animals live and fight. I have read that there are 8 main reasons for war: 1. Economic gain 2. Territorial gain 3. Religion 4. Nationalism 5. Revenge 6. Civil war 7. Revolutionary war 8. Defensive war But my point was that war could often be viewed as an acceptable way of killing, although there is much more to that. Like I said, wars do not occur simply because humans have a numbed urge to kill, but because of other causes/reasons motivated by the contradicting interests of two or more countries.
  15. Space Babe

    Why is war morally wrong?

    In my post, I managed to explain how exactly war is considered as "justified" from the aspect of human nature. However, in our modern society there are a variety of values and laws that must be respected so anarchy does not become a thing. For instance, war can destroy the future of humanity with the improvement of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. I think that it is highly irrational to jeopardize the faith of all humans because of the selfish reasons for power, control, dominance and politics between two or more countries. Humans should be considered civilized enough to resolve conflicts or to gain political/social goals from a nonviolent approach. Also, war is not moral because it is not ethical to kill innocent people, and furthermore, violate the international law. In other words, it's not necessarily about the people who are fighting, or those responsible for the declaration of the war, but rather the cause, that is, the reason for it, as well as the losses and the consequences of self destruction that humanity will suffer because of that war; Because those reasons are not derived from moral values, but from primary instinct that is originally a trait that is currently present and only manifested in wild animals, who as such, possess no moral or values.