Anyone else suffer from procrastination?

[Parallo]

Science is split into scientific facts and testable theories. Gravity and evolution are both. Phycology isn't either, like astorogy.

[derwoodly]

Just so that I am not misunderstood. 

What should be called scientific has been debated and will continue to be debated.  There is no point in argueing about it.

FYI... some would say that science never claims absolute certainty, thus, science does not have facts.

[Parallo]

But science does have terms known as scientific facts. The closest thing to certainty the we can have. That is not debatable.

[derwoodly]

This guy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ made a carrier out of debating just that.

[Parallo]

I skimmed through a bit and he seems to be saying that science moves forward at a non-uniform rate. Seems fairly obvious. Science is the contemporary way of understanding the things around us. A scientific fact is a theory for which there is evidence and that has been tested numerous times yielding the same results. Thats not to say that it is absoulute truth. Its just the closest we can get at the time of it being a scientific fact. There is always new evidence coming to light and untill there is much more phycology will not be a science.

[derwoodly]

Science is split into scientific facts and testable theories. Gravity and evolution are both. Phycology isn't either, like astorogy.

I thought you were saying scientific fact = absolute truth.

A scientific fact is a theory for which there is evidence and that has been tested numerous times yielding the same results. Thats not to say that it is absoulute truth. Its just the closest we can get at the time of it being a scientific fact.

On this part I can agree, but I think it is a bit more complex than that.  Kunh did write some kind of essay on the subject.

[Parallo]

I said its the closest thing to certainty we can have at that moment in time. We seem to agree in everything except syntax.

[zanzibar]

Wiki seems to say it could go either way.

All hail the almighty public opinion!

[emeraldfool]

Wiki seems to say it could go either way.

All hail the almighty public opinion!

Don't worry, everybody knows the almighty Zanzibar opinion is beyond anything the mere public could possibly conceive as right...


And what exactly are you guys talking about? Psychology and Chemistry and the other sciences all have the EXACT same methods of proving 'fact'.

Example:
Chemistry - You give someone a dose of Adrenalin, monitor them and take down the results, and conclude that adrenalin increases blood pressure, heightens senses, etc. Repeat 1000 times and you record it as a fact.

Psychology - You lock a subject and a bunch of others in a room and force them to count beats. There's 11 beats in total. Afterwards, a man comes in and asks them each how many beats they heard. Each person says '12', so when the subject is finally asked he also says '12', proving that social pressure can effect people's core beliefs (i.e. how many beats they perceived) Repeat 1000 times and you record it as fact.

Naturally, there will people who stick to their beliefs even though 9 people before them all heard differently, just like there are people who aren't effected by adrenalin. But the majority are for both.


Where's the difference? Why is it not a fact, simply because it concerns the mental and not the physical?

[Parallo]

We are far futher from understanding the brain than we are from the laws of physics and chemistry.

[zanzibar]

And what exactly are you guys talking about? Psychology and Chemistry and the other sciences all have the EXACT same methods of proving 'fact'.

I guess you've never studied Piaget.

[emeraldfool]

We are far futher from understanding the brain than we are from the laws of physics and chemistry.

That's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. 'Science is more easily understood than non-science'.

Besides, 'the brain' is a concept of biology. An organ. Yet we know next to nothing of the brain.

And we know FAR more about the mind than we know about Black Holes, or gravitons, or some of the other half-baked theories that Physicists put forward as so-called fact.

[zanzibar]

That's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. 'Science is more easily understood than non-science'.

Besides, 'the brain' is a concept of biology. An organ. Yet we know next to nothing of the brain.

And we know FAR more about the mind than we know about Black Holes, or gravitons, or some of the other half-baked theories that Physicists put forward as so-called fact.

The brain is not just a concept.  It's a physical object.  The "mind" however is something far more conceptual in nature since we can't directly observe it or say "It is here.".

If you think that particle physics and black holes are merely "half-baked theories", then you have just shown yourself to be truly ignorant on the subject.  I recomend picking up a few books on the subject aimed at people with a layman's understanding.  When you find a good one, they actually make for a really fun and quick read.  I'd say that they are a "light" read, but I wouldn't want to cause trouble.

[Parallo]

When I said we don't know how the brain works I ment its inner workings. Define emotion. See? And yes the "Layman's books" are a light read compared to some.

[emeraldfool]

That's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. 'Science is more easily understood than non-science'.

Besides, 'the brain' is a concept of biology. An organ. Yet we know next to nothing of the brain.

And we know FAR more about the mind than we know about Black Holes, or gravitons, or some of the other half-baked theories that Physicists put forward as so-called fact.

The brain is not just a concept.  It's a physical object.  The "mind" however is something far more conceptual in nature since we can't directly observe it or say "It is here.".



P.S. "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense mental state that arises autonomically in the nervous system rather than through conscious effort, and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response."


No you define energy.
If you think that particle physics and black holes are merely "half-baked theories", then you have just shown yourself to be truly ignorant on the subject.  I recomend picking up a few books on the subject aimed at people with a layman's understanding.  When you find a good one, they actually make for a really fun and quick read.  I'd say that they are a "light" read, but I wouldn't want to cause trouble.

Umm, physicists barely understand what Black Holes are, or the physics behind them. So far the only concrete thing they know about Black Holes is that regular physics doesn't seem to apply to them. And gravitons are purely theoretical - most physicists don't even entertain the idea of particles governing the force of gravity.

I'm using these as an example for why Science isn't the be-all and end-all for understanding the world around us. If you really think science is the answer to everything, you're the ign'ant one...


There's as much factual support for psychology - based on trial & error - as there is for science - which is also based on trial & error.



P.S. "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense mental state that arises autonomically in the nervous system rather than through conscious effort, and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response"


Now you define energy.