Cosmology and Religion...

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-26 12:49, nebularain wrote:
However, to say that deaths can be faked is evidence that the resurrection never happened sounds like an I-don't-believe-it-happened-therefore-I-will-argue-an-explanation-of-how-it-could-have-been-faked-and-claim-that-is-what-really-happened type of answer. It's obvious to most people on this Board when Planet Xers and Creationist, and geocentrists and what-nots make those kind of claims (I-believe-therefore-I-will-make-up-the-evidence-I-need); why should it be OK to do that here with this?

I appreciate the other responses and I think they have addressed some of the things I also would have said.

But I can't let your misconception of what I said go unnoticed. The evidence I speak of is real and tangible and verifiable:

it is possible to mistake death in persons who aren't really dead...&...it was ... more common to do so before the advent of the stethescope and later the EKG machine

It is the significance of the evidence you are taking issue with, and that is where science allows diverging opinions. We may not agree with conclusions that can be drawn from said evidence, but I don't appreciate being accused of making the evidence up.

There are numerous accounts of person's being taken for dead, only to have them revive in the morgue or elsewhere. You don't get mistaken for dead unless you are in pretty bad shape. Which also means people in pretty bad shape can recover.

[DStahl]

Yes, by all means--cosmology. Isn't scientific cosmology intimately tied up with mathematical physics? Thus, while valid points have been made about the softer science like psychology and sociology, we are able to talk about cosmology as a physical science.

I suppose that in order to compare scientific cosmology with religious and/or mythical cosmogonies you have to--

1. define which scientific cosmologies you want to hold as valid (it doesn't seem sensible to use the outmoded idea that only the Milky Way contains stars and the other "galaxies" are actually gaseous nebulae, for instance) and

2. then you have to decide exactly what in each of your chosen religions or mythologies constitute important aspects of their cosmogonies.

Then you can proceed to tabulate hits and misses.

One pitfall to avoid is selection bias: it's tempting to go through and list all the parallels you can find. That ignores the negative data, the places where scientific cosmology and religious cosmogony contradict each other.

Another pitfall is to assume that a given parallel is best explained as a genuine case of "ancient foreknowledge" and not a coincidental one: in the oscillating universe example mentioned previously one might speculate that because so many natural processes are cyclical--the generations of man, the seasons, phases of the moon--it would be reasonable for a Hindu sage to think that the universe might be cyclical as well. However, in that case his reasoning would not really parallel that of science, it would be coincidental.

At least, I see it so.

[Cloudy]

Beskeptical

Point well taken about the difference between degree of certainty and the degree to which something qualifies as a science. Perhaps we could learn more from each other if we kept the questions seperate, though the more the scientific method is
applicable and has in fact been applied the more certain you can be about something. generally. There are exceptions...

You seem to equate logical thought with science, as though science is logic and logic is science. I think this does violence to the language, especially if you are willing to say there is a scientific way to decide which way to vote. Science has historically refered to the scientific method - looking at as few things as possible at a time, making assertions that are falsifiable and trying to falsify them, etc. It is true that even physicists are often forced to look at more than one thing at a time but they try their best to keep things as simple as possible. Looking at more than one thing at a time is a neccesary evil. In economics, on the other hand, many times you want to look at a whole ton of things at once - those who are good at it can analyse trends by getting a good feel for the data. Not only that, you need a good feel for human nature. You want to have as broad look at what you are studying as possible. This is good, usefull, logical, even Holy at times [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] but not scientific. Yes, I have read many journal articles in economics and politics, and in history - which I have my undergrad degree in. They use allot of numbers and logic, which is all good, but numbers and logic allone do not make something a science. If you use the same word "science" to refer to both astronomy and, say, economics, you end up not being believed about "Nubiru" type trash just because few economists predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. But scientific techniques can be usefull in economics, as was pointed out re the "ice cream analogy". Sometimes you do want to isolate this variable or that as much as possible in a certain case. In this way, science can give guidance even in a mostly non-scientific field. Historical interpretation is mostly non-scientific but astronomy(a more pure science) can help us discover when Christ's birth was, etc. It is way more complex then "this is science, this is not".

I did not claim that science is mainly western. The scientific method was indeed perfected first in the western world, and this is one reason the west has achieved as much as it has in the physical sciences. But many other cultures have used it to a greater or lesser extent.

Scientism, on the other hand, is mainly western.That is what I was refering to (and yes I should have made that more clear). This is making the scientific method the only legitimate basis for any logical thought - and drawing a sharp distinction between that which is scientific and that which is not. This view is rare outside the west. It is even rare in the west, except in a few philosophical circles. This makes me skeptical when people claim "scientism" as a universal truth. You seem to defend it by broadening the definition of science - seems to me if ya want to fight pseudoscience it would be best to have better thought out definition of what constitutes real science, and a better realization of its limitations.

I applaud those of you who defend or question the historicity of Christ's resurection. It is an important question, but probably one for a different board or for private messages. I want to learn something about science - not something about the righteous, justified wrath of the moderator [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ......

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-27 05:35, Cloudy wrote:
Beskeptical
You seem to equate logical thought with science, as though science is logic and logic is science.

I understand what you are talking about when you are separating science from other aspects of life. I just wanted to point out that you can use the scientific process to look at just about anything. That doesn't mean I'm recommending anyone research and analyze each and every thing in their life.

I think you might be confusing the essence of science with the specific processes used. The scientific process is a term that refers to the essense of what science is all about. But whether or not you look at one variable alone or many together depends on what you have determined is the best way to get the data you seek. To my knowledge there's nothing restricting the scientific process to only look at the individual basic building blocks. Sometimes you want to look at the whole building.

...especially if you are willing to say there is a scientific way to decide which way to vote.

You can use the scientific process to find the best ways to be a leader, the best way to lead, the best way to get people to vote for you. That's what political science is.

I vote for the candidates I identify with. I also have holdover distrust of certain candidates because I was exposed to the events of the 60s and 70s. I'm sure there are lots of things like that involved in voting one could easily research. It wouldn't be the voter who necessarily was using science to decide which way to vote.

...those who are good at it can analyse trends by getting a good feel for the data. Not only that, you need a good feel for human nature.

I think you are trying to describe those intangible spiritual things in one's life and I understand what you mean. And, some people do have natural skills that might seem impossible to break down into describable data. It might take the wonder out for you, but you can break those skills down into describable, testible data.

I don't want to end up talking past eachother here. My life is not one big science project. I think you are missing what I'm saying.

Pseudoscience or junk/bad science does not include all the things in one's life that you are describing as being outside of science. An example of bad science is thinking astrology is legit because you think your sunsign describes you well. Good science would test the validity of astrology and recognize the errors in logic made by the person who believed the astrology based on hearing a general description.

If you use the same word "science" to refer to both astronomy and, say, economics, you end up not being believed about "Nubiru" type trash just because few economists predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.

If a few economists predicted the fall of the Soviet Union it really wouldn't indicate if they used science to make that prediction or a crystal ball. They could have used either one.

To make a prediction without scientific data and reasoning, and then having the prediction come true does not tell you if your prediction was valid or just a coincidence because you don't have enough data and a controlled study to determine a relationship.

On the other hand, if you did collect data about communist and capitalist economic systems, and then went on to predict that communism was not sustainable, you could still be wrong. The scientific process does not guarantee your results.

...science can give guidance even in a mostly non-scientific field. Historical interpretation is mostly non-scientific but astronomy(a more pure science) can help us discover when Christ's birth was, etc. It is way more complex then "this is science, this is not"

Sort of. I'd put it a little differently. You can seek a scientific perspective on the historical interpretation or you can seek a spiritual one. A scientific perspective might look at astronomy, archeology and sociology to answer questions. A spiritual perspective might look at traditional, (or nontraditional), historical interpretations for answers

I did not claim that science is mainly western. The scientific method was indeed perfected first in the western world, and this is one reason the west has achieved as much as it has in the physical sciences.

What are you calling the 'Western World'?

Scientism, on the other hand, is mainly western.That is what I was refering to ... This is making the scientific method the only legitimate basis for any logical thought - and drawing a sharp distinction between that which is scientific and that which is not. This view is rare outside the west. It is even rare in the west, except in a few philosophical circles. This makes me skeptical when people claim "scientism" as a universal truth.

Science is not a religion. I've not heard the word "scientism" before. Your description is that of a religion.

And, I still think you are describing a stereotypical picture of East and West. It is not an observation I agree with. I have traveled all over the world and people are not as different as you might think.

[Silas]

It is valid, within broad terms, to speak of Western Civilization and Eastern Civilization.

One of the more intriguing distinctions is the Western emphasis on "canonical forms." Consider the amount of effort art historians put in to determine if a painting is a "genuine Van Eyck" or merely a work in his style. Now look at a Hopi sand painting, created under the sunlight and allowed to disappear into the wind.

Yes, people are pretty much the same...but civilizations have distinguishing traits, and, again painting with very wide brush-strokes, the civilizations of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the pre-Columbian Americas had some large conceptual distinctions from Indo-European (including Arabic) civilizations.

Silas

[nebularain]

Beskeptigal - I was kind-of wondering if maybe your name ought to be changed to "Pitbull"? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

(NOTE: comment meant in fun and jest, not in spite)

[Wiley]

Beskeptical wrote:
You can use the scientific process to find the best ways to be a leader, the best way to lead, the best way to get people to vote for you. That's what political science is.

Or if you're Richard Feynman, use the scientific method to determine the best method to pick up women. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[David Hall]

I happen to agree with Silas. The concepts of science and objectivity are primarily western (as in "originated in Europe"), and ultimately have as their source the ancient Greek philosphers and their concepts of logic and rationality.

While the East, particularly China, accomplished many incredible scientific and technological feats, they did not truly develop a scientific mindset. Scientific knowledge in Asia was traditionally holistic in nature, concerned with metaphysical abstracts and spiritual uses.

So while a lot of practical scientific knowledge originated in Asia, the concepts did not. They did eventually adopt the western scientific method when people saw just how useful it is but it was the European rationalists who actually developed it.

It's this history that colors the way science is seen in different parts of the world, and even today there is a perceptibly different "feel" in Eastern attitudes towards science, even if the techniques are the same.

[Jim]

Or if you're Richard Feynman, use the scientific method to determine the best method to pick up women.

No. You have moved away from science and into the realm of the supernatural.

[Wiley]

On 2002-08-27 13:32, Jim wrote:
Or if you're Richard Feynman, use the scientific method to determine the best method to pick up women.

No. You have moved away from science and into the realm of the supernatural.

I never said he found the best way. If he had determined the best way to pick up women, why would he go into physics?

[traztx]

On 2002-08-27 16:32, Wiley wrote:

On 2002-08-27 13:32, Jim wrote:
Or if you're Richard Feynman, use the scientific method to determine the best method to pick up women.

No. You have moved away from science and into the realm of the supernatural.

I never said he found the best way. If he had determined the best way to pick up women, why would he go into physics?

Yeah, picking up objects is more of an engineering problem.

[Wiley]

On 2002-08-27 16:42, traztx wrote:

On 2002-08-27 16:32, Wiley wrote:

On 2002-08-27 13:32, Jim wrote:
Or if you're Richard Feynman, use the scientific method to determine the best method to pick up women.

No. You have moved away from science and into the realm of the supernatural.

I never said he found the best way. If he had determined the best way to pick up women, why would he go into physics?

Yeah, picking up objects is more of an engineering problem.

Hmmm...

Must be a mechanical engineering problem. I developed no such skills in electrical engineering.

[traztx]

On 2002-08-27 16:45, Wiley wrote:

On 2002-08-27 16:42, traztx wrote:

On 2002-08-27 16:32, Wiley wrote:

On 2002-08-27 13:32, Jim wrote:
Or if you're Richard Feynman, use the scientific method to determine the best method to pick up women.

No. You have moved away from science and into the realm of the supernatural.

I never said he found the best way. If he had determined the best way to pick up women, why would he go into physics?

Yeah, picking up objects is more of an engineering problem.

Hmmm...

Must be a mechanical engineering problem. I developed no such skills in electrical engineering.

Who knows... considering some styles involving odd piercings and iron jewelry... you could etermine the number of teslas required, eh?

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-27 12:57, nebularain wrote:
Beskeptigal - I was kind-of wondering if maybe your name ought to be changed to "Pitbull"?

Pitgal

[beskeptical]

Pitgal sounds a tad complimentary. I'm glad you didn't say pitcow or pit b., (not bull). Once again, the language favors the male, needs a revamp. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Neb, not to worry, it didn't come across as the least bit spiteful.

As to the East West thing, I agree those terms can mean exactly what you are describing. As long as one doesn't attribute the description to all the people from those regions of the world. You know, the noble savage stereotype kind of thing.

One thing I am so happy I did was to spend several years, (total time), traveling to many parts of the world. It changes how you view the World and it's cultures. It's something difficult to understand from an 'only American perspective'.

Having folks on this BB from all over the world is so cool. Once computer programs improve that can translate languages in real time, think how the conversations will change. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[xriso]

On 2002-08-27 18:46, beskeptical wrote:
Having folks on this BB from all over the world is so cool. Once computer programs improve that can translate languages in real time, think how the conversations will change. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Well, if the computers fail to translate idioms correctly, the conversations will be quite amusing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Silas]

On 2002-08-27 21:32, xriso wrote:
Well, if the computers fail to translate idioms correctly, the conversations will be quite amusing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

They already are! On another forum that I haunt regularly, a group of us was startled, then relieved, when what seemed to be a terrible disagreement was revealed to be a difference in the connotation of the word "crime" in Spanish and in English.

In English, a crime can be a misdeameanor or something far more serious... But in Spanish, the word connotes a serious crime only.

The most important thing I learned from that (and, yes, this is vaguely relevant, because it has been evident all through the "Idle Moon Math" thread) is: when you think someone has said something really dumb, don't jump down their throat and yell, "That's really dumb!" Instead, ask for clarification. They might, instead, be using a term differently than you are accustomed to.

In science, an awful lot of effort goes into defining the terminology with as much precision as possible. Our ordinary English concept of "work" is subtly different from the definition in physics of "a force applied over a distance."

Silas

[Espritch]

My own religion is falsifiable in at least one sense - show me really, really good evidence that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead and yes I would have to at least reconsider my beliefs.

I'll have to confess that there is no way I can do this. To prove such a thing, I would first have to prove Jesus actually existed and that is rather difficult to do given that the only evidence for his existence are 4 gospels written well after the fact. None of the contemporary Roman historians of the time made any mention (at least none we have existing accounts from) of a man named Jesus who went around Palistine healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, etc. There is no mention of the darkness that covered the earth on the day of his death or the dead rising up and walking the streets of Jeruselem. You would think those Roman historians might have made at least passing note of such curious events (they made note of a lot of less remarkable things).

[Celestial Mechanic]

So people thought they saw Jesus Christ after the crucifixion. Big deal! People have been claiming to see Elvis since his death 25 years ago. Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.

[Cloudy]

BeSkeptical

I think you might be confusing the essence of science with the specific processes used.
---------
As I understand it, science is a process. The essense of science is in the specific processes used- processes called scientific method. There is no science appart from the scientific method. At least this is the definition I was taught in a public high school and in a college that was religious also taught evolution, etc. And it is a common definition in general use.

The scienfic method can teach you(with a greater or lesser degree of reliability in each discipline) specific, narrow facts but it was not made as a tool to synthethising these facts together. Yet such synthesis is essential in making such logical decisions as who to vote for, what house to buy, etc. Even in the pure sciences, you need some non-scientific logic in order to synthesize a large body of experimental results into a falsifiable theory. Science and other forms of logic depend on each other and use each other. Godel proved(I trust him - I can't follow his math) that no scientific or mathematical theory is ever complete within itself - some things must always be assumed or brought in from the outside.
----

BeSkeptical

To my knowledge there's nothing restricting the scientific process to only look at the individual basic building blocks. Sometimes you want to look at the whole building.
----
Yep, but when you do, you are taking a step away from science in its purest form. And this is often a very good thing to do, but it is important that we acknowledge that this in fact what we are doing

Maybe you are right, we are not as far appart as we think.... The importance, I think, is in recognizing both the powers and the limitations of the scientific method. And to avoid saying we are using it when in fact we are not.

----
BeSkeptical
I think you are trying to describe those intangible spiritual things in one's life and I understand what you mean. And, some people do have natural skills that might seem impossible to break down into describable data. It might take the wonder out for you, but you can break those skills down into describable, testible data.
------
You can, but sometimes if you attempt this you can see the trees but not the forest. Some facts about human nature can be tested in a sense but we must be extremely carefull in the assertions we make from such studies, since it is impossible to come close to controling for all the variables involved. One thing I give psychologists credit for - they usually downplay the significance of psychological tests like the Stanford-Binet IQ test. Yet people always seem to want the "certainty" of "science" and they worship the magic numbers they get from such tests in spite of their inventor's cautions.

-----
BeSkeptical
Pseudoscience or junk/bad science does not include all the things in one's life that you are describing as being outside of science.
------

I agree. Yet when people hear that "Political Science" and psychology are as much as science as physics, they are less likely to believe you when you debunk bad science like astrology. You have overbroadened the definition of the word and the kooks can then use it as they please. They will look at the techniques sometimes (legitimatly) used to study history, economics, etc. and mistakenly believe that they can be applied also to areas where a more strict application of the scientific method should reign.

------
BeSkeptical
If a few economists predicted the fall of the Soviet Union it really wouldn't indicate if they used science to make that prediction or a crystal ball. They could have used either one.
------

True. Science is in the method, not the results. I just hope this world can recognize this tool where it is being used, what its powers, and what its limitations are.
-----
BeSkeptical
To make a prediction without scientific data and reasoning, and then having the prediction come true does not tell you if your prediction was valid or just a coincidence because you don't have enough data and a controlled study to determine a relationship.
----
Controlled studies may show a correlative relationship between your predictions and reality. But in order to make such predictions in the first place - you need to go far beyond the use of controlled studies. You need to look at everything from what workers say on the shop floors to what philosophy is being preached in the universities - as well as economic numbers.
----
BeSkeptical
On the other hand, if you did collect data about communist and capitalist economic systems, and then went on to predict that communism was not sustainable, you could still be wrong. The scientific process does not guarantee your results.
----
Of course even the scientific method is not infallible. I don't accuse you of saying that. In fact - here we may find more common ground - it is possible to dress up ones ideas to make them look like they were based on the scientific method when in fact they are mainly based on something else entirely(even though that something else may still be valid, even cool [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]). In psychology and economics - this merely serves as a dishonest dressup for genuinly valuable work. In pseudoscience, it is used to cover the smell of **.

----
BeSkeptical
You can seek a scientific perspective on the historical interpretation or you can seek a spiritual one. A scientific perspective might look at astronomy, archeology and sociology to answer questions. A spiritual perspective might look at traditional, (or nontraditional), historical interpretations for answers
----
Mostly I agree. Though I would put the study of history more in the "logical, but not as scientific" category.
---
BeSkeptical
Science is not a religion. I've not heard the word "scientism" before. Your description is that of a religion.
---

To be honest, scientism is a kind of a pjorative term. I havnt heard anyone claim to be a believer in "scientism". I have heard it used by others(religious and unreligious) to describe a system of belief that espouses the scientific method as the ONLY means of gaining real knowledge of truth. Scientism, I agree, is not science but philosophy or religion. Science is simply the use of the scientific method. Scientism is a philosophy that leads to the abuse of it.

I'll let ya have the last word...Ive repeated myself to much when ya all probably understand me anyway. And there are women to chase out there. Time to see how much of this speech I can read on a date before being slapped [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ....after which I'll come back and try to learn more from ya all without feeling bound to respond....

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-28 00:42, Cloudy wrote:
Yet when people hear that "Political Science" and psychology are as much as science as physics, they are less likely to believe you when you debunk bad science like astrology. You have overbroadened the definition of the word and the kooks can then use it as they please. They will look at the techniques sometimes (legitimatly) used to study history, economics, etc. and mistakenly believe that they can be applied also to areas where a more strict application of the scientific method should reign.

I think you're right, we may be close to going over the same points but I feel I must take one more stab at it. I take issue with your reasoning here. The above statement seems to be the best example of where we are in disagreement. So allow me to use the following example to try to illustrate what I mean.

I have a Master's degree in the Science of Nursing. Nursing's historical beginnings were very much like what you are describing and even though there was science involved in the medical care, the rest of the role of a nurse was viewed as in the realm of 'caring'.

Then the role of research became more important in medicine and nursing alike. 'The art of medicine' is now 'evidence based medicine'. What nursing researchers discovered was that most of the things nurses did weren't recognized, and, no one had ever even described what they did. Nurses were seen as Drs' assistants. Yet there was an entire field of nursing that had developed beyond assisting Drs.

That has all changed. (Well, maybe not the recognition.) Now you can find books on nursing diagnoses that are distinct from medical diagnoses. And once described, recognition of the science of nursing begins. The scientific process is used to advance that science just as any other.

As a nurse practitioner, I think I have more expertise in my field, (employee infectious disease prevention), because I combine medicine with nursing. I provide all the medical care needed to prevent infectious disease and manage exposures. And nursing provides the expertise to deal with the emotional, behavioral, and, educational issues.

I presume you recognize the importance of scientific research in medicine. But what about the need for scientific research to determine better ways to teach, to effect workplace safety, and to deal with emotional reactions to infectious disease hazards?

What I'm trying to tell you is that your description of 'pure science' would discount the importance of research in all the sciences except physics, astronomy, geology and similar fields. The scientific process is a means of observing the world and using the observations to understand what is occurring.

How you go about making those observations and determining what they mean is where you differentiate science from pseudoscience. There are many very good ways to observe behavior, brain function, cultural interactions, emotions and the like. Research methods may differ from say, chemistry, but the results are reliable, repeatable, etc.

Astrology, to use one example of bad science, has never been verified with careful observation. In fact, observation has shown it to be false. It's not that one couldn't test it that makes it bad science, it's that people accept it as true without any valid evidence.

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-28 05:46, beskeptical wrote:
I presume you recognize the importance of scientific research in medicine. But what about the need for scientific research to determine better ways to teach, to effect workplace safety, and to deal with emotional reactions to infectious disease hazards?

What I'm trying to tell you is that your description of 'pure science' would discount the importance of research in all the sciences except physics, astronomy, geology and similar fields. The scientific process is a means of observing the world and using the observations to understand what is occurring.

How you go about making those observations and determining what they mean is where you differentiate science from pseudoscience. There are many very good ways to observe behavior, brain function, cultural interactions, emotions and the like. Research methods may differ from say, chemistry, but the results are reliable, repeatable, etc.

Yeah, results are reliable as long as the experiment actually accounted for all the variables. And of course, even with the most reliable result, interpretations of the results may not be so reliable. As examples, I refer to a previous topic we discussed on certain researchers claiming the sun has more iron than we previously thought and therefore solar system formation occurred differently than previously thought. Are they correct in their interpretations of the data? Were their results reliable? Did they account for everything correctly in their studies?

OK, in the end you can validly claim that it doesn't matter in the long run because science is self-regulating and all of that. With further sudies and experimentations and such, the truth will come out in the end.

Fine and dandy for astronomy. But what about medical science and nutrition science? Mistakes like that can be costly. As an example, in the 1950's I believe it was, nutrition scientists were saying that we were consumming too much calcium. So, what happens? Now we have an osteoporosis problem, and the nutrition scientists are saying were aren't consumming enough calcium! Yikes!! Along those lines, will science ever figure out the correct mode of dieting to lose weight?

I ask a similar question with education. I took a class this past summer on cognitive learning, and part of that class involved going through the different approaches to teaching (teaching through behaviorist methods, cognitive methods, and other psychobabel methods). We had to research the scientific psychology journals to find info. on these things. Apparently, the modes and mindsets of teaching have been changing over the decades, obviously because the method employed was found not to be working properly. So, they try new approaches,a nd others keep on studying other modes to still try to find the best one. How long before they finally get it figured out?

I do respect science and the scientific method. But I will agree that there are limitations and pitfalls, and some disciplines fare better with the scientific method (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology) than others (i.e. psychology, teaching methods).

Part of the problem with things like psychology and teaching is that for an experiment to be conducted properly, you have to isolate variable (study only one variable at a time, otherwise, how do you acurately determine which variable affected which outcome?). But when it comes to things like psychology and teaching, there are so many variables invovled that work together. For instance, why did I react to a certain situation the way I did? Is it "nature," "nurture," my belief system, a habit I developed, imitating someone else's reaction, a mixture of all or some of these? Psychologist still debate all this stuff. How can they conduct an experiment or a study that will finally get it right?

OK, off the soap box now. I start my first class today, so I won't be able to spend as much time on the Board as I have been this summer. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img] Beskeptical, you have the floor. Forgive me for having to leave the arena, though. (Then again, you might be glad for that [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] .)

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-08-28 07:50 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-28 07:41, nebularain wrote:
How can they conduct an experiment or a study that will finally get it right?

I think it might surprise people to learn just how recently good science has been used in medicine. So there are a lot of carryovers from the less than scientific days. In addition, the news media does a horrendous job of reporting on medical research. Everything is 'researchers now know' when the researchers know they've just looked at a tiny piece of the picture.

But for those of us who use science in the fields you think are not conducive to research, it isn't the problem you seem to think it is. The limitations in research are solved by multiple studies, large sample sizes, and good control groups.

But this is beside the point. Science is a process. The end results are as reliable as one is able to get at that moment. Astronomy is limited by its observation tools just as much as psychosocial research is limited by the complexity of interactions. Just because one views research in psychosocial science to be difficult does not make it any less 'pure' science.

I have exausted my reserve of ways to get this point across. If it still doesn't make sense it will have to wait until it surfaces in another thread to go any further.