Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ccdan

  1. You don't seem to be paying much attention to what I'm saying. I already told you the wiki article claims that "Some swans are not white" is what make the statement FALSIFIABLE!
  2. It's irrelevant the so called keyword. every room in every building = all swans "there's a green unicorn in every room" = property of the room(it has an unicorn), equivalent to the color of the swan If you find a single room without unicorn, the property of the room is changed, equivalent to finding a swan of a different color That's completely nonsensical. Counting swan's eyes is the same as seeing swan's color. The number of eyes is just a property of the swan, the same way color is. By that logic, seeing the color of a swan would make the statement "all swans are white" falsifiable.
  3. Don't put things in my mouth... here's the original text from wiki: My statement is basically identical, I just replaced color with the number of eyes. "since" = that's why it's falsifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be
  4. It''s wrong. As is the article on "falsifiability" No one does actual science by trying to "disprove" theories, hypotheses and so on. The only problem being, that, until you find a three eyed swan, the statement "all swans have two eyes" is non-falsifiable, that is, non-scientific - according to the Popperian theory you're subscribing to.
  5. "falsifiability" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method.
  6. I have noticed that this term gets thrown around quite often when people debate what's "scientific" and what is not. What I have NOT found is a definition or explanation of "falsifiability" that is unambiguous, coherent and logical! Apparently it's an alleged "property" of a theory or hypothesis, which for some mysterious reason makes it "scientific" (whatever that might mean - I'll get back to that later) So we need a "test" which could tell us whether a theory/hypothesis is "falsifiable" or not. In the context of science any such a "test" should be rigorously and unambiguously defined. The problem is, the only things I found are ambiguous and nonsensical ramblings made by people who seem very unfamiliar with the clarity, rigor and logical soundness that actual science requires. And I haven't even touched on the issue of how such a "test" would prove that something is "scientific" and what that would really mean. Let's explore a few examples ... first, wikipedia: So we have: "basic statement" - what does it mean? how does it differ from non-"basic statements"? do you just have to "say something"? "successful or failed falsification" - a theory is falsifiabile if [something], which, in eventual successful or failed falsification [some other stuff] - what is the meaning of falsification here, as it sounds like a circular statement "must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation" - what's the meaning of "hypothetical observation"? it kinda sounds like oxymoron! are imaginary things are ok? unicorns? aliens? or just scenarios that are imaginary but seem plausible due to similar actual facts that exists or perhaps laws of physics? OK, let's now explore the concrete example... from the same wikipedia: 1. what if that "basic statement" were not a "true observation" but some imaginary stuff? 2. how about this one: "all swans have two eyes" ... good luck finding a three eyed swan! OK, now let's try to falsify one popular "theory": "The earth is flat!" - well, this is contradicted by many statements and experiments that back them! So "the earth is flat" is a scientific theory according to Popper! WOW! How does it help us in separating non-scientific stuff from scientific stuff? We can even try to formulate theories related to imaginary friends: "In every room in every building on earth, there's a green unicorn!" Finding just one room without an unicorn would make the theory "scientific". You can replace unicorns with angels, gods or whatever. Then there's the nonsense that a theory can only be "disproved" and never "proved" - which is hugely wrong and nonsensical(you might get to "disprove" an infinity of things and won't be able to reach any conclusion)! Actually the whole story about "falsifiability" comes from this philosophical idea of Popper that "nothing is certain" and theories can only be shown to be false. Besides being wrong, is completely unhelpful, as that's not the way we use science to our benefit. I'll stop here for now.
  7. You'll find lots of jobs related to "syhthesizing new chemicals" and virtually none specifically related to quantum physics (only university professors and a very small number of researchers have anything to do with quantum stuff - almost exclusively on a theoretical level )
  8. I wouldn't really call paleontology (as it is right now) a science because the fundamental aspect of science, the testing of various hypotheses using the scientific method, is pretty much non-existent.
  9. It's not scientific at all. Science uses the scientific method, verifiable evidence and some pretty clear and rigid rules in order to repeatedly test and confirm or reject various hypotheses. That kind of stuff has nothing to do with the scientific approach.
  10. @mooeypoo: I don't understand what you mean! and you seem to be extremely "selective" with your "observations".... the fact that PhDWannabe called me a "troll" for absolutely no reason, means nothing...
  11. Very interesting! So you admit that you know just about nothing about psychology (and implicitly psichiatry), but for "some reason" you don't want want to " have this thread turn into that kind of discussion"... WHY? Moreover, you're not even curios to find out why I said that there is no science in these fields... as such, you seem interested in this subject, in thes same fashion religious people are interested in religion... well, that's a bit unexpected, beause we are, supposedly on a "science forum"
  12. Oh! So... approaching this subject in an objective, rigorous and scientific manner (I guess you know my older posts) is called "trollig" ... interesting! As, for your "doctoral program" it's not really a surprise... there are PhD's in "fields" like theology, philosophy and in some countries even in astrology... and who knows what else... apparently, if there are enough people preoccupied by certain "subjects" no matter how non-scientific and nonsensical, there could also be PhD programs for those things...
  13. You're being dishonest... you should admit openly that you can't diagnose anything (from a distance or not), simply because there's no objective, verifiable and scientific criteria for such a thing! Everything in psychiatry and psychology is based on pseudoscience, subjectivity and imagination.
  14. Just like any other "disorder" defined by the DSM, it's just an arbitrary term for an arbitrary set of so-called "symptomps" with no real scientific basis! As such, there's no real disease (or "disorder"), and of course, no "treatment"
  15. the scientific method cannot be applied to society, because the society is made of irrational and subjective beings... the venus project is itself the brainchild of extremely irrational and subjective beings, who don't have even the slightest idea about the nature of the human being, the nature of economics, money and so on...
  16. the average individual is far too dumb to have any saying on this matter... just look at the number of people who believe in some supernatural entity like god...
  17. because they're not fed too much irrational crap like religion as it happens in the western world, middle east, africa, etc... the same holds true for japan, south korea, ...
  18. if your approximations are real(I seriously doubt that), they're based on zero science! there are no so called "dissenters" - this kind of terms are specific to anti-science extremists who try to advance their personal and irrational beliefs misleading the general populations with unfamiliar terms Your very use of the term "predisposition" speaks volumes! Informed scientists should be completely aware that relative concepts like correlations don't prove absolutely anything! There's no such a thing as "good evidence" or "bad evidence"! There's only one kind of evidence: physical, unfalsifiable and undisputable! Being extremely rare, tons of crooks try to fabricate it! conclusions in science(including medical science) are not expressed using terms like "indicates", "suggests", "promote the hypothesis" and so on... these are mere speculations without any scientifically proved basis!
  19. And you sound like islamic fundamentalists who "found" an "apostate" The so called "anti-psychiatry movement" is largely the equivalent of the people in medieval times who opposed religion, superstition and various irrational and illogical thoughts related to a variety of subjects, including to what we now call "communism" ... in short, critics of anti-psychiatry are themselves extreme irrationalists fearing that their own irrational and abusive systems of beliefs would collapse! this is not a mere question of opinion, but something purely objective and verifiable! "the reach world of fantasy" is still extremely present in the western world under the form of religion(particularly the US), communism/socialism(France, northern Europe and others) and nationalism (most western nations) That is entirely fasle! Before talking about "brain diseases" you should make sure that such conditions do exist from a strictly scientific (an implicitly objective) perspective! To date, there's not a single so called "mental illness" scientifically confirmed! All such claims are purely subjective social constructs!
  20. social...ists? perhaps socialist ecologists? no, those are not very intelligent I'm afraid
  21. maybe because they have less dangerous jobs, get less often into physical fights, drink less alcohol, eat less fat and other unhealthy things, smoke less, like guns and other weapons less, are far less aggressive and take fewer risks in dangerous situations, use pills (likely to fail) for suicide instead of blowing off their brains or jumping off from buildings, drive less fast, etc? all in all there are fewer risks in their lives due to their far less aggressive and more healthy lifestyles... men on the other hand do the opposite and are more likely to lose their lives sooner..
  22. the difference is too small to have an explanation... it's something random and it happens that at this time there are more females than males (apparently at least)
  23. while some people claim that facts don't exist, no one dares to "transgress" gravity (or the space-time curvature, if you want) jumping from high rise buildings without parachute or the effect of high current on their skin
  24. no, teens are actually more reasonable than most adults, largely because of less irrational indoctrination like religion and other things... also, they're definitely far more intelligent than 80-90 yr. old people... and let's not forget the concepts of adulthood/minority are purely subjective social constructs... at 18 absolutely nothing special happens from a scientific point of view... moreover, concepts like maturity/immaturity are also subjective social constructs... they're also relative, because there's no clear definition for "mature" do you think throwing them in prison for having sex or for drinking alcohol is something sensible and humane? they only have to be educated, not punished... crossing the street even while sober is often far more dangerous than having sex or drinking alcohol... and far more children die while crossing the street than because of having sex or drinking alcohol sex is indeed inevitable but most people don't do it in public, because of another natural trait: they're ashamed to do it in public... your ideas are a result of religious and/or cultural indoctrination this analogy doesn't make any sense! neither adults nor teens can drive while drunk! but for some reason, teens can't drink while adults can! oh, really? first, what really is a "fully developed" brain? when is it so, and how do you measure that? then, how do you explain that a larger proportion of adults believe in irrational things like gods, astronomy, numerology and so on? the age of consent has nothing to do with keeping any predators at bay but with people's idiotic religious and cultural beliefs... don't be that sure! Teens Charged With Raping Each Other While Engaging In Consensual Sex When an Oak Creek woman found her 14-year-old daughter nude in the woman's bed with a 14-year-old boy, the teens didn't strike her as being overly concerned. "They both freely admitted that their intention was to 'have sex,' " records quote the woman as saying. They "were confrontational and remorseless." The teens even "challenged" the woman to call police. So she did. Now, the couple's would-be sexual encounter in October has both of them facing serious criminal charges. But prosecutors say children have no right to have sex. "Sex between kids is not legal," said Assistant District Attorney Lori Kornblum, who is prosecuting the case. According to the law, "Whoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 is guilty of a Class C felony." There is no mention of consent. http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001669.php no, there's no good reason for that... it's pure idiocy! the age of consent in other parts of the world is as follows: between 13 and 15 in most of Europe (including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 13 in Japan and South Korea... 14 in most of South America... the US on the other hand has some of the highest ages of consent in the world, closer to countries like Turkey, Egypt, Congo, Gabon, Liberia, Rwanda and so on, where people tend to keep it very high to to their religious beliefs! normally the age of consent should be at around 13, at the onset of puberty
  25. like almost any other type of brain research that involves brain scans, this one is flawed too! it seems the universal mistake correlation=causation is unbelievable irresistible! And such claims can be very dangerous, because some may claim that they know better what a person thinks than the person in question - all based on a totally flawed theory, just as it is with the classical polygraph... and some people seem very eager to use new pseudo-scientific tools in order to serve pseudo-justice: Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence: Neuroscience, Lie-Detection, and Beyond http://legalworkshop.org/2010/08/13/can-bad-science-be-good-evidence-neuroscience-lie-detection-and-beyond
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.