"If we do not have causality, we are buggered"...

[eFestivals]

But that's not logic, it's an observable effect. Psychology tells you why, just as physics tells you why.

PMSL.

The physics thing has substance behind it, from external verification, and countless confirming evidence.

Psychology offers merely an idea from someone's head, that is invariably proven wrong - as the history of psychology to date gets to show.

They might be the same thing in the idea you lay out there, but they're not the same thing in the quality of conclusion - they're about as far apart as its possible to be.

The problem is that Neil is confusing logos with science.

PMSL - you couldn't be more constantly wrong with dragging out this shite from your mouth at every opportunity.

I'm confusing nothing. I'm simply applying a quality threshold to things. Psychology is exceedingly poor quality, as shown by the amount of constant revisionism needed from top to bottom of the whole subject, because it's whole basis is so shallow of solid ideas and facts, while the maturity of physical science gets to make its quality exceedingly high.

As Stephen Fry said the other night, psychology is still in the dark ages. Until it reaches enlightenment - gets on the right path rather than constant wrong ones - it remains pretty much worthless.

Crediting a poor idea as something of high value only leads us into the shit - as this economic crisis gets to prove.

[worm]

The physics thing has substance behind it, from external verification, and countless confirming evidence.

[worm]

[Ed209]

[worm]

He's talking about Neutrons, not neutrinos. They are very very different. There has never been any concrete observation of neutrons travelling faster than light, so he was wrong.

[Ed209]

"Small particles" is an extremely vague and unscientific term. They are both small to us, but compared to a neutrino, a neutron is far from small. In fact they're about 10 000 000 000 times more massive. Its like comparing a single grain of sand with a fully grown male elephant. They're not even in the same ball park.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

No, some physical theories have been scientifically verified. Just as some psychological theories have been scientifically verified.

I'll go along with that even tho it's a distortion - because a huge number of physical theories have also been physically verified as well as scientifically verified, while the same does not apply for psychology - which only has head-thoughts for verification (and we know what psychology itself says about the reliability of head thoughts, and which scientific tests of psychological theories gets to prove ).

So we get to see that psychology has a far weaker basis for its conclusions overall than physical science overall. Which is what I said, and you've now agreed with.

Giving everything the same weight just because the word science can be used against it is the method of morons, linguists, psychologists, philosophers, and ... morons.

Job done.

You're repeating the same irrelevant bullshit as you miss the point. That's all you're doing.

the person who missed the point was you, otherwise you'd not have made that statement.

Edited September 28, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

I'll go along with that even tho it's a distortion - because a huge number of physical theories have also been physically verified as well as scientifically verified, while the same does not apply for psychology - which only has head-thoughts for verification (and we know what psychology itself says about the reliability of head thoughts, and which scientific tests of psychological theories gets to prove ).

[eFestivals]

What on earth do you mean by 'physically verified'? It's either scientifically verified or it isn't.

the very ideas that gets built on top of the basics of physical science gets to further prove the correctness of those basics - the proof is in the physical output that comes from those scientific ideas.

Ideas that get built on the basics of psychology don't have that verification. They are only ever true on the basis of the starting assumptions, starting assumptions which have nothing of substance to prove their correctness. They can't be verified outside of the ideas that they start from, they're self-sustaining ideas, but only ever ideas.

The ideas might be able to be 'tested', but they can only be tested against other ideas, and nothing that's ever of more substance (such as physical repeatability) than an idea.

If we go back to pre-enlightenment science, the world was flat. People used ideas which 'proved' the world was flat, but which of course turned out to be definitively wrong when we had access to the physical proof (a spaceship from space, if not prior to then).

Of course, the idea of the world being flat had been disproven by other ideas long before that, but we still eventually ended up with the physical verification of the idea that the world was round. Psychology can have nothing like this, it can only ever have just ideas until such time as it's able to come out with ideas which are 100% applicable to all people, something it's failed at since it's birth.

So, for psychology, the world is still flat - it's still in the dark ages. And just as when we thought the world was flat, ideas get built on top of that initial idea and 'prove' the initial idea just as how in the past other ideas confirmed the world as being flat.

You may call it 'science' if you wish, but it's shit science compared to a science with a physical verification because it's working from only ideas, and the history of the world being flat gets to show how misplaced such ideas might be, and the history of psychology only re-enforces that (cos just about everything about it gets proven as wrong).

We only progressed into enlightenment with 'real' sciences once we got the basics right, and learnt how to ask the right sort of questions of the data available - a point we've yet to reach with psychology.

We don't even yet know what 'thinking' is, for christ's sake. We can only think about what thinking is, and every take we've yet had on that has been proven wrong (and you're still clinging to one of those yourself, whilst believing you're operating on a scientific basis! ).

Nope. You just didn't understand the problem that Feral faced. You referred to psychology as a science for a kick off. It was the fact that it was a flawed scientific model that was the problem, not psychology. Psychological variables were still at play in the experiment.

And we're back to you operating the religionists cop-out, that the 'bad' people can't have ever been religious. That isn't any reference to science, that's just a cop-out.

Feral was told that she was doing a psychological experiment - so whatever happened from there isn't of much relevance to my point. The 'psychologist' believed it to be 'science', feral was told it was 'science', and that the science was called 'psychology'. So it was 'science'.

But of course it wasn't. So in that instance, the psychologist was claiming psychology as a science when it wasn't a science.

You did the exact same thing right here in posts you made in the last few weeks - claimed yourself as a scientist of psychology, while rejecting a scientific approach and so proving yourself as no scientist despite your claim.

You won't accept this because you've swallowed the (dated ) textbook, but psychology and psychologists do that sort of thing all the time, because otherwise they have to admit that they've got the starting points completely wrong (that they're still thinking the world is flat, if you like), and so have to admit that all they value is worthless. And having invested all you have in the idea, there's no way they or you will go with that.

It's no wonder why psychologists won't apply their theories to their own thinking.

[worm]

the very ideas that gets built on top of the basics of physical science gets to further prove the correctness of those basics - the proof is in the physical output that comes from those scientific ideas.

Ideas that get built on the basics of psychology don't have that verification. They are only ever true on the basis of the starting assumptions, starting assumptions which have nothing of substance to prove their correctness. They can't be verified outside of the ideas that they start from, they're self-sustaining ideas, but only ever ideas.

[worm]

the very ideas that gets built on top of the basics of physical science gets to further prove the correctness of those basics - the proof

But of course it wasn't. So in that instance, the psychologist was claiming psychology as a science when it wasn't a science.

[eFestivals]

I asked a simple enough question: What do you mean by 'physically verified'?

The person eating is physical verification. The brick falling is physical verification.

care to show me any sort of equivalent for what thinking is (not what it does)? There is no such thing.

The brick requires variables that determine how it falls.

yep. But without knowing those variables, we can still see that it falls, and we know what it is that is falling.

We know of nothing similar for thinking. We can see the output of what we take to be thinking, but we cannot see what thinking is.

At what point is gravity 'physically verified'?

when that brick falls onto your head, and the fact that the brick, or anything else, will ALWAYS fall on your head in the same manner in the same conditions.

There is nothing similar for thinking. For a start, it's not possible to set the same conditions to repeat an experiment, or even measure what the conditions are for any experiment. There is only and input and an output that can be measured, everything in between comes down to nothing other than guesswork.

As the thread title states, 'without causality, we are buggered'. This is true because we cannot label any physical force without a dependent variable that we believe to have caused it. It's absolutely no different for psychology.

but we can pin down the dependent variables for (say) gravity.

Psychology doesn't have the faintest idea where to start for that for itself. It can only be guessed at - and as the history of psychology and how little its progressed gets to show, the guesses are invariably wrong.

For example, your out-of-date version (unless you've updated since you posted it, which of course would only get to prove my point right ) says that thinking is solely responsible for movement and that thinking is done by free will.

What you're continually failing to get with what I'm saying is that I'm not saying it can't be approached scientifically, I'm saying that even when that's tried it tells us so very little of use that we might as well have not have bothered.

I'm sure at some point we'll get the basics right and be able to build up from there, much as happened eventually with 'normal' sciences when we pinned down the basics. But to date we remain in the dark ages, and because of that it shouldn't be credited with the importance that some give its invariably transient ideas.

Edited September 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So what is your point?

It's extremely simple.

Feral's psychologist was claiming to be a psychologist - so he's a psychologist (unless you take the religionist's cop-out, which is laughable).

Yet he didn't operate scientific methods in being that psychologist.

And so the psychology he operated and claimed as a science wasn't actually a science - but it remains a version of psychology, because it's a version of psychology arrived at by scientific methods. The problem is that it's an old dated version, that that psychologist is refusing to update himself about.

The world of psychology is full of such types, who swallow the dated textbook and stop being scientific because of it. The dogma of a particular place in time becomes for some the definitive version, and further scientific investigation isn't wanted. You're one of these, as you so recently proved of yourself.

This is all the result of psychology being fast moving as an immature science, and because it's an immature science it's still in the dark ages, and those ever-changing ideas are no less transitory than the previous set of ideas.

Sure, there's parts of psychology that do have some worth, but they're about the equivalent in physics of being able to point and say "there's a brick", while knowing nothing of the fact that there's the force of gravity affecting it, or even being able to see that it's falling.

Edited September 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

It's extremely simple.

Feral's psychologist was claiming to be a psychologist - so he's a psychologist (unless you take the religionist's cop-out, which is laughable).

Yet he didn't operate scientific methods in being that psychologist.

And so the psychology he operated and claimed as a science wasn't actually a science - but it remains a version of psychology, because it's a version of psychology arrived at by scientific methods. The problem is that it's an old dated version, that that psychologist is refusing to update himself about.

The world of psychology is full of such types, who swallow the dated textbook and stop being scientific because of it. The dogma of a particular place in time becomes for some the definitive version, and further scientific investigation isn't wanted. You're one of these, as you so recently proved of yourself.

This is all the result of psychology being fast moving as an immature science, and because it's an immature science it's still in the dark ages, and those ever-changing ideas are no less transitory than the previous set of ideas.

Sure, there's parts of psychology that do have some worth, but they're about the equivalent in physics of being able to point and say "there's a brick", while knowing nothing of the fact that there's the force of gravity affecting it, or even being able to see that it's falling.

[worm]

care to show me any sort of equivalent for what thinking is (not what it does)? There is no such thing.

Edited September 29, 2011 by worm

[kaosmark2]

In science, you start with data, information, facts, and find the theories to explain them, and then conduct experiments, attempting to disprove the theories, and if you fail to disprove the theories enough times, it's a scientifically verified theory until something comes along to disprove it.

In pseudo-science, you start with an idea, a theory, then try and find and gather information to prove it, often conducting experiments in a biased way to attempt to justify your theory or idea.

[worm]

To reiterate in relation to your fucked up reasoning:

A brick falling and a person acting are your physical evidence.

Gravity is the abstract physical force that is measured in relation to what it does. Motivation is the abstract psychological force that is measured in relation to what it does.

Independent and dependent variables are what are used to measure them.

So what's your point?

[eFestivals]

You're just repeating the same ignorant, mindless drivel because you haven't listened. I've put these claims to bed. You just appear brainless, pig-headed and stupid.

He is a psychologist and he did use a scientific experiment. He used it to ascertain the consequences of certain variables in relation to known psychological forces, such as motivation. If the results were found to be different in a different scenario then there are other variables at play.

You've laid out a scenario which to you absolves psychology of the bad doings of a bad psychologist. As I keep saying, it's the standard religionist's worthless cop-out.

The simple fact is that he claims himself as a psychologist, and that religionist's cop out cannot change that part of things. So his non-scientific approach has damaged the credibility of all psychology as a meaningful science. No word twisting gets to change that.

And while you won't accept it, he's a very long way from being the only one within psychology who takes that same approach, and which all makes psychology a dubious thing in practice.

The fact that something might be labelled 'science' says nothing of its real worth.

[worm]

You've laid out a scenario which to you absolves psychology of the bad doings of a bad psychologist. As I keep saying, it's the standard religionist's worthless cop-out.

The simple fact is that he claims himself as a psychologist, and that religionist's cop out cannot change that part of things. So his non-scientific approach has damaged the credibility of all psychology as a meaningful science. No word twisting gets to change that.

And while you won't accept it, he's a very long way from being the only one within psychology who takes that same approach, and which all makes psychology a dubious thing in practice.

The fact that something might be labelled 'science' says nothing of its real worth.

[eFestivals]

To reiterate in relation to your fucked up reasoning:

A brick falling and a person acting are your physical evidence.

Gravity is the abstract physical force that is measured in relation to what it does. Motivation is the abstract psychological force that is measured in relation to what it does.

Independent and dependent variables are what are used to measure them.

So what's your point?

We know for sure - as sure as it gets with science,. anyway - due to it's maturity as an idea that the abstract idea of gravity is right for what happens with a brick.

We do not have anything like the same certainty around the ideas of motivation. You can measure that something happens ('output') that we put down to the idea of motivation, but there is nothing to demonstrate, confirm, or verify that the idea of motivation that you work to is right, or that if it is that it's actually motivation that is responsible for the output that can be measured. It's merely the case that within a very immature idea that that's what we credit as happening.

The process of discovery for both can be called scientific, and they are even towards that idea of science. The amount of certainty that exists around the ideas that are input and the results that are output and the conclusions drawn from those are wildly different (because gravity as an idea is hundreds of years old and still being proven as true, while what exactly is motivation is itself a regularly changing thing).

We have no way of knowing what 'natural forces' are acting on thought processes and to what degree - tho we can demonstrate that 'natural forces' are in play (for example, with the simple idea of a particular coloured background affecting a person's buying choice).

We DO know what 'natural forces' - gravity - are acting on the brick and to what degree.

Just because both are of 'science' does not make both of equal value. The value comes from the correctness of the ideas - a correctness that is constantly proven as right with gravity, but not with the (to-date) ever-changing ideas of what is motivation.

Edited September 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I've explained to you that physics and psychology are logos, not sciences, and that both follow the exact same abstract basis in relation to the scientific verification of observable phenomena.

how many times do I have to state that this line of argument is absolutely nothing to do with that I'm saying?

It's correctness that counts, not merely ideas.

I've shown that there is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever for physical forces outside of what they do to objects.

I've shown you that this is exactly the same for psychology. Yet still you make completely irrelevant claims about psychology that have absolutely no rational basis.

Really? So do show me that physical object called 'thought'.

[eFestivals]

Just because both are of 'science' does not make both of equal value. The value comes from the correctness of the ideas - a correctness that is constantly proven as right with gravity, but not with the (to-date) ever-changing ideas of what is motivation.

as an addendum to this....

We can also build further solid ideas (as proven by 100% replication in application) on top of the idea of gravity, that just like the gravity idea itself proves the gravity idea as right.

The more we try building on top of (say) motivation only gets to bring in doubts about the whole idea of motivation. The further we try to go from the basics, we can see that the starting ideas of psychology are brought into question.

The very facts of things prove those differences in the amount of trust we can reasonably have in the ideas of both.

Science used to prove the world was flat. That turned out to be the result of 'bad science'. Once we amended the idea of what physical science was, we got to the right starting basics.

Psychology is still at the flat earth stage of things.

[worm]

We know for sure - as sure as it gets with science,. anyway - due to it's maturity as an idea that the abstract idea of gravity is right for what happens with a brick.

[worm]

how many times do I have to state that this line of argument is absolutely nothing to do with that I'm saying?

It's correctness that counts, not merely ideas.

[worm]

We can also build further solid ideas (as proven by 100% replication in application) on top of the idea of gravity, that just like the gravity idea itself proves the gravity idea as right.