News:

Nothing gets wasted around here

Main Menu

Stay Classy Republicans.

Started by Prince Glittersnatch III, November 28, 2010, 08:23:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Requia ☣

Yeah... at the very least you can get ostracized in psychology, if you're a Freudian, or get caught faking data.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Requia ☣

Thinking about this more, the first test seems very strange.  None of my professors ever mentioned where they got their doctorate from, the only one I know what school she went to was only because she was still using her alumni email address.  Nor have I ever seen it mentioned in anybodies byline on a paper, its the school or research institute they're associated with now that people care about.

The second is strange too, what's the test for a physicist, test the things everybody agrees on?  Anybody who graduates with a degree in physics should know those, with limits on the degree of specialization, that doesn't tell you if they're competent to do more than schoolwork. The peer review process?  Doesn't seem to be helping economists.

The third is the only one that people everybody agrees are scientists would pass, damn near any field would get you drummed out if you got caught faking data, even economics.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Gray Jester

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 30, 2010, 02:59:51 AM
Thinking about this more, the first test seems very strange.  None of my professors ever mentioned where they got their doctorate from, the only one I know what school she went to was only because she was still using her alumni email address.  Nor have I ever seen it mentioned in anybodies byline on a paper, its the school or research institute they're associated with now that people care about.

The second is strange too, what's the test for a physicist, test the things everybody agrees on?  Anybody who graduates with a degree in physics should know those, with limits on the degree of specialization, that doesn't tell you if they're competent to do more than schoolwork. The peer review process?  Doesn't seem to be helping economists.

The third is the only one that people everybody agrees are scientists would pass, damn near any field would get you drummed out if you got caught faking data, even economics.

The first test is silly.  Although, (in theory  :lulz:) someone with a PhD from a reputable university should be able to do independent research in physics, and likely already have (their thesis), and there is usually a certain quality of research coming out of an institution, this test has no place in determining what is 'real science'.

The test for "What is physics?" is "Does it empirically predict real results or explain a physical phenomenon?", and it's similar for most true sciences, even when you're talking about probabilistic things:  it's a matter of it working and having real, reproducible results in legitimate experiments*.  Good physicists are those whose teachings and conclusions meet this test, bad physicists are those whose teachings and conclusions do not.

By that test, psychology... might barely make the cut.  Economics is right out.  As it is, it seems like most social 'sciences' are just poorly done philosophy in disguise anyways.

*With a control and a single variation and no bias for sampling and etc. etc. etc.  Basically, for probablistic things, it should still be reasonably statistically valid.
I am a surrealist.  It makes me feel more knightly.

Jasper

Actually a few "psychologies" are pretty empirical.  Social & behavioral psychology and neuropsychology, for example, apply strong scientific principles. 

The Johnny


But surely no psychologist can be taken to trial on malpractice!

It would be like taking an astrologer to court!
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

Phox

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 30, 2010, 12:47:33 AM
:argh!:

That was my first thought too. Then I realized that even with no formal training, not even a high school class, I know more about psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychopathy than all of the counselors, two of the psychologists, and the only psychiatrist I've had to see from simple observation. On the other hand, I know nothing about economics, but I could make up a theory real quick. Which field does that make me an expert in?

Jasper

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 30, 2010, 05:24:05 AM
But surely no psychologist can be taken to trial on malpractice!

It would be like taking an astrologer to court!

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.htm

Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case nevermind.

LMNO

You can make up a few scenarios that may help:

Imagine two people:  A Physicist with a PhD from a mid-level state school, and an Economist with a PhD from Princeton.

Each of them relates a theory from their field of whcih you are not familiar, but you have a gut-level feeling of "wrongness" about each theory.

Which one are you more likely to believe simply because of their doctorate?

Remington

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 30, 2010, 02:59:55 PM
You can make up a few scenarios that may help:

Imagine two people:  A Physicist with a PhD from a mid-level state school, and an Economist with a PhD from Princeton.

Each of them relates a theory from their field of whcih you are not familiar, but you have a gut-level feeling of "wrongness" about each theory.

Which one are you more likely to believe simply because of their doctorate?
Whichever one matches up most closely with my pre-conceived ideas, of course.
Is it plugged in?

LMNO

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 30, 2010, 02:59:55 PM
You can make up a few scenarios that may help:

Imagine two people:  A Physicist with a PhD from a mid-level state school, and an Economist with a PhD from Princeton.

Each of them relates a theory from their field of whcih you are not familiar, but you have a gut-level feeling of "wrongness" about each theory.

Which one are you more likely to believe simply because of their doctorate?

Already thought of that one, fuckbag.

Cain

I should point out the first test likely derives from the authors experience, or, if you prefer, jihad, against analytic philosophy, which propagates through various University departments, where success is dependent more on ideological agreement and training than research.  Ideological groupings in economics, in certain Universities (Chicago comes to mind, with Friedman and the Chicago Boyz) are also rather common.

By contrast, most science departments are not run on ideological grounds.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

It seems to me that eventually humans need to realize that SCIENCE! is useful in many things, but not in ALL EVERYTHING. If we can't observe something repeatedly, if we can't control the variables, if we have no ability to have a 'control group', etc... then the results of any scientific observation is limited.

Economics and God... both ineffable; both start wars   :lulz:
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

The Johnny

Quote from: Sigmatic on November 30, 2010, 07:18:00 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 30, 2010, 05:24:05 AM
But surely no psychologist can be taken to trial on malpractice!

It would be like taking an astrologer to court!

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.htm

Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case nevermind.

Sarcastic, dude.

That article is a bit weird, they call Reynolds in different moments a psychiatrist, psychotherapist and then psychologist... which boils down to the latter two because he couldnt prescribe medication.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

The Good Reverend Roger

This thread is ALSO now about psychology.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Disco Pickle

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
This thread is ALSO now about psychology.

lots of good comments here on economics and I'd love to add to it even though I'll probably get shit for being a libertard.

I'm not offering refutations or endorsements of anything previously posted, but I recommend this book for anyone interested in economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Action

"Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happened and those which do not matter." --William Ralph Inge

"sometimes someone confesses a sin in order to take credit for it." -- John Von Neumann