Why Hate Science?

Post Reply New Topic

i do not agree with you about this in full.

what i don't agree with most is the reference to a personal experience with dating a psychologist. that holds no ground here.

i do agree that teachers should teach and not analyze, that is the job of the school psychologist. though, some roots in cognitive psychology or something else would help a teacher understand the students better, and allow for the teacher to collaborate with other school admins to help "difficult" children out in their schooling.

the labeling is a feature that is hard to deal with in a short post... i don't have time to get into that now.

there have been subjective assertions in other sciences besides psychology... evolutionary biology, for example... so, does that negate the overall veracity of those fields of study?

so, are you labeling psychology as a pseudoscience, or are you just saying that there is too much pseudoscience for you to take it seriously?

The dating experience holds ground with me, though. The rest are more-or-less personal experiences, as well; but they seem to have been shared by others. These are my reasons - yours may vary.

Subjective science? If the hypothesis holds up under examination, and the peer-review process validates the conclusion, then evolutionary biology becomes accepted as fact.

Labels confine individuals to other people's expectations. A kid might be withdrawn because his sister's cat ate his hamster, but let some gung-ho teacher / wannabe shrink slap a label on him, and that label stays with him long after he's gotten over the death of his pet.

Personally, I'd rather see mathematicians, professional scientists, published writers, and lawyers teaching children than any psychologist - at least they would know their subject matter.

That's kind of why I gave up on dating - I felt like dating in and of itself made me need psychotherapy and I realized what a circular situation that would turn out to be.

I’d also say, avoid using those issues and their corresponding labels as an excuse to prevent that kid from being taught subjects they could learn just fine, thereby making them lag farther and farther behind their peers, worsening their problems, rather than solving them. Many psychological “issues” aren’t very clearly defined, and have a tendency to never be solved in any measurable way, meanwhile making a formidable time sink which hinders personal development in other areas.

I can deal with mind games - most who play them really don't know how to be subtle about it - but when the woman I was dating suddenly lashed out at with psycho-babble labels that even I had never heard before, I knew that she had me out-gunned and that she was never going to consider me equal to her in the relationship.

Later, she was all apologetic, but the damage had been done. I haven't seen her for over a quarter-century.

Sometimes, teachers use the label as an excuse to avoid teaching a subject that the kid understands better than the teacher, or because the kid isn't satisfied with just a shallow textbook answer.

Some kids may grow up hating science simply because it was never properly explained to them by a teacher who preferred to wax eloquent on the wonders of iambic pentameter...

Its not that they get me with mind games, the process is just so depressing that its one of those few things in life where I feel like sharp objects need to be kept away from me for my own safety. If some foreign intelligence agency ever wanted to extort information out of me I don't think there would be a quicker or more efficient way than telling me they'll arrange ten Eharmony dates per day until I confess.

Some people do manage to have successful relationships, despite the large number of emotionally challenged people out there.



It is also true that personal development can be hindered when problems inhibiting learning go undiagnosed.

Well, my depression with that has nothing to do with inability to find relationships and everything to do with the process. Suffice to say we're taking serious psychoanalysis of what I really meant half-heartedly as a joke.

Just out of curiosity, what is the peer review process and who are one's peers?

The Dictionary is your friend...

peer (n): 1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers; 2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status. 3. something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer. 4. a nobleman. 5. a member of any of the five degrees of the nobility in Great Britain and Ireland (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron).

review (n): 1. a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation. 2. the process of going over a subject again in study or recitation in order to fix it in the memory or summarize the facts. 3. an exercise designed or intended for study of this kind. 4. a general survey of something, especially in words; a report or account of something. 5. an inspection or examination by viewing, especially a formal inspection of any military or naval force, parade, or the like.

Thus, the peer-review process involves people who are equal to the original researcher in abilities and qualifications making a critical evaluation of the original research and returning with a critical article or report of their findings. This evaluatory process usually involves attempting to replicate the results of the original experiments using the same methods and tools in order to evaluate the methods themselves, the original data and the interpretation thereof. Or, as stated in This Wikipedia Article on Peer Review:


Peer Review does NOT include publishing one's claims in a tabloid, newspaper, or other social media before one's peers have had a chance to review it. The original research and its data are usually shared with one's peers either before or through publication in a recognized journal that is dedicated to that particular field of research, and it always assumes or includes a "Null Hypothesis", which basically states "We could be wrong, and here is why...".

Procedure: When a team of scientists have finished a research project and written the paper about it, this paper is sent to scientific journals such as "Nature" and scientific societies such as the Royal Society. The journal's editor then selects a number of scientists that are competent in whatever field the research was about and sends them the paper. (These are 'peers' - scientists in the same field). These scientists evaluate the paper and give an advice to the editor if they think it is fit for publication. When the majority thinks it is, the paper is published in the scientific journal. All universities and major research institution have a subscription to these journals. Staff, employees and students have access to these journals and can then read the paper.

Fnord, I conflated the terms axiom and faith. I believe I may be conflating other concepts up. You're telling me to look up the definitions of terms myself. How can I be expected to do that if I can't trust my own interpretations and end up in fallacious thinking because of my inadvertently conflating things up? How do I make sure that I am reading the definitions of terms in the way they're supposed to be read? This is why I asked you and others to define terms. Right now, I don't see how the dictionary is my friend if I have to interpret terms by myself and I may misinterpret terms.

How do I even tell which dictionary is the most reliable? Is dictionary.com reliable? What about the Oxford or Webster's?

For example, when it is said life is not fair? What does fair mean and how does one appropriately interpret this phrase?

These two definitions are the best ones I can approximate are the appropriate ones for the phrase life is not fair.

They are from dictionary.com.

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

2.
legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

if life is not fair is a rule to life then by definition number two how does "life is not fair" hold up? Am I interpreting this phrase wrong? If yes, how? How would it be possible to get rid of bias or predjudice? Isn't one who wants to get rid of bias and predjudice well biased and prejudiced against those who are biased prejudiced.

If it is definition one why tell me something that is a tautology.
If it is definition two then proof by contradiction says that the phrase "life is not fair" is false.
if it is both definitions then definition 2 negates both definition 2 and definition 1.

Where is my logic erroneous? As you see I'm probably conflating things up that I may not be meaning to conflate up.

Thanks for clarifying.

I get that labeling can lead to inappropriate treatment if the label is incorrect. But I don't think this is a reason not to try to identify what may be causing a behavior or learning deficiency. It's important to try to engage each person. I know teachers are not therapists, but they are like first responders. They are the ones who are going to see something that might need to be addressed.

I hate those moments.

i think you mistook what i was saying...

i wasn't saying that "evolutionary biology is a subjective science". what i was saying that a person's own subjectivity can color the results they pursue, even in "hard" science. this has happened in the past, and still happens occasionally today.


good peer review can definitely catch an even slightly biased article of research, so usually this doesn't happen... but that doesn't mean that it never has and still doesn't happen.

you should find this interesting... :Mismeasure of Accuracy - Stephen J Gould and the Morton Collection