What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Oh, and you keep claiming I'm saying I'm the only one who's right - I'm claiming no such thing. I'm expressing an opinion, and why I feel the way I do.

I'm not claiming my way if thinking is THE way to think, it works for me, you're the one trying to have an absolute right or wrong here, in something that is an ideology, not a scientific hypothesis.

As an ideology, there's a high element of interpretation involved.

I love behaviourism, I'm well aware of its limitations, and as an ideology, it's very narrow.

But as a strategy, it's pretty effective, it suits my aversion to labels, allows for development and change, as such is an optimistic, non judgemental perspective, so I like it.

it's not my God, though. It's a useful tool.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I don't claim superiority for psychology.

and yet you did. You claimed psychology as a science and claimed sociology not to be.

If you'd done any half-decent study of sociology you'd know they claim the same status.

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

There you go neil, if this explains my perspective better. I prefer functonalist methods:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/feminism.htm

behaviourism is functionalist and tautological. which is fine, as long as you don't misunderstand that.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

and yet you did. You claimed psychology as a science and claimed sociology not to be.

If you'd done any half-decent study of sociology you'd know they claim the same status.

Are you sure I wasn't saying you were unscientific? I can't remember claiming either as an actual science, because neither of them can ever be, not a hard science, anyway. they can only adopt scientific methodology in an attempt to be objective.

I've often said psychology tries to be scientific, it's well aware of its own limitations though.

[eFestivals]

You've said within this thread that I'm not a feminist, I'm not making anything up.

That's not what I said you were making up.

When you have such a loose attachment to evidence and statements, how well do you think you might do in following evidence and ideas?

Just for the record, I said you're not a feminist because of your (lack of) academic rigour, where you'd far rather go with your prejudices and anecdotes.

[eFestivals]

Are you sure I wasn't saying you were unscientific? I can't remember claiming either as an actual science, because neither of them can ever be, not a hard science, anyway. they can only adopt scientific methodology in an attempt to be objective.

uh no I'm not, because patriarchy is an ideology, not a science. If you were as objective as you claim, you'd realise that wile sociology might compete with psychology, it's not mutual, because psychology is to busy trying to emulate the physical sciences.

[feral chile]

That's not what I said you were making up.

When you have such a loose attachment to evidence and statements, how well do you think you might do in following evidence and ideas?

Just for the record, I said you're not a feminist because of your (lack of) academic rigour, where you'd far rather go with your prejudices and anecdotes.

You've admitted your own lack of academic rigour, so are you a non feminist too?

I do have a substantial academic background, you know. 2 degrees, partially completed degrees in between, partially completed and abandoned (due to having to be the breadwinner - grr!) Doctorate - so don't assume disagreement is ignorance. ALL incorporated feminist theory. Sociology is not the only discipline that has a feminist perspective, you know.

[feral chile]

Patriarchy and sociology are one and the same, now, are they,

clue: sociology is not the only discipline that contains feminism as part of it.

So does psychology, literature, history, philosophy (all of which I've studied) and no doubt many others.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

You've admitted your own lack of academic rigour, so are you a non feminist too?

I've made no claim either way. You have done.

I do have a substantial academic background, you know. 2 degrees, partially completed degrees in between, partially completed and abandoned (due to having to be the breadwinner - grr!) Doctorate - so don't assume disagreement is ignorance. ALL incorporated feminist theory. Sociology is not the only discipline that has a feminist perspective, you know.

When you write things which prove you don't know what you're talking about, those degrees might as well be arse-wipe.

I'm a long long way from being an expert myself, but when you claim Sociology isn't a science as you did, I know you're winging it.

[feral chile]

I've made no claim either way. You have done.

When you write things which prove you don't know what you're talking about, those degrees might as well be arse-wipe.

I'm a long long way from being an expert myself, but when you claim Sociology isn't a science as you did, I know you're winging it.

you still haven't quoted me saying that, and I don't remember saying it.

And you told me off ages ago for giving Psychology a capital, but it's ok for sociology is it?

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

you still haven't quoted me saying that, and I don't remember saying it.

I've quoted it just above, where you go on about psycology emulating physical sciences.

And you told me off ages ago for giving Psychology a capital, but it's ok for sociology is it?

Did I? I don't remember doing that.

As for my own capitalisation, that's merely the result of unthinking fingers. I even managed to do it with 'science' as well, I can only think as a result of subconsciously thinking of the capitalisation within 'BSc'.

Consider us both told off.

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

you still haven't quoted me saying that, and I don't remember saying it.

...that wile sociology might compete with psychology, it's not mutual, because psychology is to busy trying to emulate the physical sciences.

There is zero difference between psychology and sociology in relation to science.

Both come up with theories from observations, and those theories can then be scientifically tested.

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

I've made no claim either way. You have done.

When you write things which prove you don't know what you're talking about, those degrees might as well be arse-wipe.

I'm a long long way from being an expert myself, but when you claim Sociology isn't a science as you did, I know you're winging it.

You just bloody claimed it a few posts ago!

'Just for the record, I said you're not a feminist because of your (lack of) academic rigour'

[eFestivals]

You just bloody claimed it a few posts ago!

I've made no claims for myself, I should have said.

[feral chile]

There is zero difference between psychology and sociology in relation to science.

Both come up with theories from observations, and those theories can then be scientifically tested.

and is sociology trying to become a science?

Does it have hypotheses, method, results, and evaluations, based on statistical probability?

I don't know, I graduated in psychology, I only know what psychology tries to be, I can't remember sociology discussing whether it was a science or not.

We didn't have experiments when I studied sociology, however. (I actually thought sociology was superior on this regard, by the way, but don't let me get in the way of you telling me what I think is superior, because I wouldn't want you to lose that big chip that props you up).

[eFestivals]

and is sociology trying to become a science?

No, it already is.

You can't have sociology undergraduate bachelors of science if it's not a science.

Does it have hypotheses, method, results, and evaluations, based on statistical probability?

yes.

We didn't have experiments when I studied sociology, however. (I actually thought sociology was superior on this regard, by the way, but don't let me get in the way of you telling me what I think is superior, because I wouldn't want you to lose that big chip that props you up).

that's because, exactly the same as with psychology, it's not necessarily a science. It depends if it's applied, or just talked about.

[feral chile]

I've made no claims for myself, I should have said.

why have you exempted yourself from your own rule?

[eFestivals]

why have you exempted yourself from your own rule?

what?

where I have I demanded that you say you're a feminist or not?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, you were just discovering that your knowledge of sociology is very limited, and often factually incorrect...?

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

No, it already is.

You can't have sociology undergraduate bachelors of science if it's not a science.

yes.

that's because, exactly the same as with psychology, it's not necessarily a science. It depends if it's applied, or just talked about.

I think they both have the same problems, because people have consciousness, so the environment doesn't just act on them in a predictable way.

Sociology as I was taught it relied on qualitative methods, which I actually preferred. I find a tension between analysing people as a science, in order to be objective, as while I agree it should be objective, I don't see how you can analyse phenomenological and subjective experience. There are too many variables to factor out, apart from losing meaning once you objectify people.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

what?

where I have I demanded that you say you're a feminist or not?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, you were just discovering that your knowledge of sociology was very limited...?

You categorised me as a non feminist, because of your rule around lack of academic rigour and non feminism . You defined one with the other.

Your category, your rule. You then, for consistency's sake, would have to apply it to everyone else as well, otherwise it's just a meaningless statement.

Including yourself.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

This is how deductive reasoning works.

feral is not a feminist because she lacks academic rigour.

SO: the rule can be formulated so:

non feminists lack academic rigour. feral lacks academic rigour therefore she is a non feminist.

neil lacks academic rigour therefore he is a non feminist.

see?

Conclusion follows premise.

So, for your argument to be valid, you would also have to be non feminist.

(Validity and truth are separate, by the way, in deductive reasoning). A valid argument need not be true.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I think they both have the same problems

And so do I, but that's nothing to do with you being completely wrong about what sociology is.

Sociology as I was taught it relied on qualitative methods, which I actually preferred. I find a tension between analysing people as a science, in order to be objective, as while I agree it should be objective, I don't see how you can analyse phenomenological and subjective experience. There are to many variables to factor out, apart from losing meaning once you objectify people.

A qualitative approach can be just as scientific.

Says the man without a degree teaching all this to the person who was boasting about her own qualies.

Now, perhaps put down your defences and wise up instead? You're boxing yourself in the wrong place by an approach where you're saying there's nothing further for you to learn.

[eFestivals]

You categorised me as a non feminist, because of your rule around lack of academic rigour and non feminism . You defined one with the other.

Your category, your rule. You then, for consistency's sake, would have to apply it to everyone else as well, otherwise it's just a meaningless statement.

Including yourself.

If stroking the squirrel makes you feel better, then yes, I'm a failed feminist too.

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

A qualitative approach can be just as scientific.

Nope.

[eFestivals]

SO: the rule can be formulated so:

well, it can be, but it doesn't have to be, You've managed another logical fail.

The problem is the wrong place your lack of academic rigour takes you to, rather than the lack of academic rigour itself.

You're all over the place. One moment you're quoting bookspeak, the next your prejudices are the new truth, etc, etc, etc. You never stop and check your thinking to work out where you are.

We've just gone thru a page or three of all of that, and I still don't think you've really grasped that sociology is at least the equal of psychology in an academic sense, and all of what that means to everything you've said so far.