Psychology isn't even necessarily a social science, it's sort of in the middle between social science and natural science. It's a chimera of the two. It actually depends which part of psychology you're dealing with, because psychology itself is a rather diverse field.
As for the majority of papers being bad, I've heard that common within all the sciences. Maybe moreso within the social sciences, I wouldn't be surprised of that; but a good portion of psychology is heavily influenced by biology and there's a bit less (political) ideology prevalent within psychology than, say, within sociology. But that's my (biased) observation...
Also, replicability issues are probably more due to the sampling than over-analyization.
Usually the people making these sorts of claims are physics types that admonish all the "lesser" sciences for being "fuzzy" yet then belittle them for "physics envy" when they attempt to be as mathematical and precise as possible. Philosophers of science and epistemology and people with a broader scientific outlook usually don't care about what smug physicists think about themselves, though.
That really has nothing to do with this. The Sokal hoax was itself a paper made up of gibberish and goofy nonsense aimed at exposing silly lit crit po-mo types; this type of fraud was doctored data.
There are some ways to flesh out fraud. Invented data will have statistical irregularities real data probably won't. An example of this is asking people to invent a possible outcome of flipping a coin 10 times... you are more likely to see longer rows of sequential heads or tails in real coin flips; people tend to try to even it out with equal H's or T's in their sequences with only small sequences of the same side. This is due to poor intuition on the nature of probability. I believe one article mentions that such statistical irregularities were present...? I can't remember which one it was, it wasn't either of these two.
Journals, however, typically do not review the raw data and typically assume good faith.
Of all the arguments you chose, you chose that one? Seriously, man. His argument is going to be that the ISPs own their own wire, routers, and access to them (that part of the internet) is not public anymore than your personal router and wireless or ethernet is public.
By arguing THAT, you show you don't really understand what the overall issues are about.
The problem is you are assuming "the hard problem of qualia" when not everyone believes there IS such a problem, let alone the existence of qualia itself... and it has nothing to do with whether you're a psychologist or a neuroscientist, as you indicated (or at least, seemed to imply). And that's basically why I brought up behaviorism's lasting influence--almost all scientific psychology is still essentially behaviorist in some fashion. Psychology neither assumes nor needs qualia.
As I assume you have a Ph.D in psychology (otherwise you would not be qualified to call yourself a psychologist) , you should be quite familiar that many within your tradition are extremely comfortable with Professional Neuroscientist's position on the matter. Particularly, those of a staunch functionalist or eliminativist persuasion. Nothing within psychology itself necessitates the establishment of subjectivity and (to use Dennett's phrasing) the "Cartesian Theater." By no means not even cognitive psychology or the whole of cognitive science. Your conception of "subjectivity," philosophically speaking, assumes things that may not be true, and is not necessary theoretically. I would point out to you that most data gathered within cognitive psychology is not, in fact, particularly subjective in nature but exists as behavioral output--reaction times and accuracy rates. Where is the subjectivity, the first-person perspective, there? Even so-called "subjective reports" really are just behavioral data. Behaviorism did not die--it simply became more moderate and turned into cognitive psychology--this view is detailed in Roediger's article, "What Happened to Behaviorism?" One need not subscribe to a dualistic conception of the human mind to do cognitive psychology / cognitive science. You are actually treading on ground that is more firmly planted in philosophy. A Puny B.S. in Psychology with an interest in philosophy and cognitive science/psychology.
MOD PARENT UP! It's stuff like this that make slashdot worth reading, even if the news articles are crap (like this one is).
A very simple biological take on on the brain is that simply, neurons and synapses just don't work on the quantum scale. Patricia Churchland (rightfully) mocks Penrose's idea as being akin to pixie dust in the synapses. Penrose makes his first error (as you allude to) in his silly conception of free will vs. determinism and randomness. Then he just piles up the blunders.
The only people that buy into Penrose's views on consciousness are silly people easily influenced and bamboozled by bullshit. Frankly it's shameful that people are paying him any mind, in a sane world nobody would know Penrose's view on consciousness because it is so without merit that it need not be mentioned. Perhaps it gets attention just because it serves as an example on how not to approach the question of consciousness.
Penrose is the only one brave enough to ask the question; "Is consciousness real?" and try to answer it using physics and science.
The fact that you would even suggest this shows how completely and absolutely ignorant you are of the subject matter. Please refrain from commenting until you've at least read some wikipedia articles on the matter.
In fact, a (related) question that you haven't considered that philosophers and scientists discuss that comes prior to the question, "Is consciousness real?" is, "What is consciousness?" And there is no full agreement, leading many to suspect that the question, "Is consciousness real?" is either meaningless or answered with, "no," because if you cannot even agree upon a working definition, then perhaps the concept itself should be further scrutinized. Many hold that "consciousness," considered in regards to what one normally understands upon hearing the word, is merely something like an illusion. This line of thought is particularly influential to functionalists and eliminativists.
and that's what the corporate world wants to know before they hand you a career-level position.
Except nobody is getting career-level positions these days unless they're super-lucky or ubermensch. Good looking finding a decent job in this economy.
. I'd actually like to hear a libertarian explain why governments have a right to tax the public. I actually don't think they could do it.
It's quite simple. They don't. Oh, naturally you want governments to tax people because you like (some of) what they do for you, but that isn't actually a moral justification, is it?
Hah, when you're anonymous it's easier to debate because personal qualities of the people making the arguments are unknown; therefore, the arguments are more likely to stand on their own (although people do speculate).
That "stand behind it" crap is really all just manly-sounding bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize there are many times a wireless connection may be preferred, right?
Couple the keyboard with a battery charger (powered by its own batteries)
Psychology isn't even necessarily a social science, it's sort of in the middle between social science and natural science. It's a chimera of the two. It actually depends which part of psychology you're dealing with, because psychology itself is a rather diverse field.
As for the majority of papers being bad, I've heard that common within all the sciences. Maybe moreso within the social sciences, I wouldn't be surprised of that; but a good portion of psychology is heavily influenced by biology and there's a bit less (political) ideology prevalent within psychology than, say, within sociology. But that's my (biased) observation...
Also, replicability issues are probably more due to the sampling than over-analyization.
Usually the people making these sorts of claims are physics types that admonish all the "lesser" sciences for being "fuzzy" yet then belittle them for "physics envy" when they attempt to be as mathematical and precise as possible. Philosophers of science and epistemology and people with a broader scientific outlook usually don't care about what smug physicists think about themselves, though.
That really has nothing to do with this. The Sokal hoax was itself a paper made up of gibberish and goofy nonsense aimed at exposing silly lit crit po-mo types; this type of fraud was doctored data.
There are some ways to flesh out fraud. Invented data will have statistical irregularities real data probably won't. An example of this is asking people to invent a possible outcome of flipping a coin 10 times... you are more likely to see longer rows of sequential heads or tails in real coin flips; people tend to try to even it out with equal H's or T's in their sequences with only small sequences of the same side. This is due to poor intuition on the nature of probability. I believe one article mentions that such statistical irregularities were present...? I can't remember which one it was, it wasn't either of these two.
Journals, however, typically do not review the raw data and typically assume good faith.
I'm looking forward to Salo!
Actually, I believe they are.
Of all the arguments you chose, you chose that one? Seriously, man. His argument is going to be that the ISPs own their own wire, routers, and access to them (that part of the internet) is not public anymore than your personal router and wireless or ethernet is public.
By arguing THAT, you show you don't really understand what the overall issues are about.
I didn't realize Republicans had the monopoly on higher-quality education.
Go back to SA, filthy goon.
and that all relies on unjustified intuition :)
You have no idea what you are talking about.
It's OK that you were a former philosophy major; I wasn't that impressed with the ones I went to university with, either.
I know.
The problem is you are assuming "the hard problem of qualia" when not everyone believes there IS such a problem, let alone the existence of qualia itself... and it has nothing to do with whether you're a psychologist or a neuroscientist, as you indicated (or at least, seemed to imply). And that's basically why I brought up behaviorism's lasting influence--almost all scientific psychology is still essentially behaviorist in some fashion. Psychology neither assumes nor needs qualia.
Hello Professional Psychologist,
As I assume you have a Ph.D in psychology (otherwise you would not be qualified to call yourself a psychologist) , you should be quite familiar that many within your tradition are extremely comfortable with Professional Neuroscientist's position on the matter. Particularly, those of a staunch functionalist or eliminativist persuasion. Nothing within psychology itself necessitates the establishment of subjectivity and (to use Dennett's phrasing) the "Cartesian Theater." By no means not even cognitive psychology or the whole of cognitive science. Your conception of "subjectivity," philosophically speaking, assumes things that may not be true, and is not necessary theoretically. I would point out to you that most data gathered within cognitive psychology is not, in fact, particularly subjective in nature but exists as behavioral output--reaction times and accuracy rates. Where is the subjectivity, the first-person perspective, there? Even so-called "subjective reports" really are just behavioral data. Behaviorism did not die--it simply became more moderate and turned into cognitive psychology--this view is detailed in Roediger's article, "What Happened to Behaviorism?" One need not subscribe to a dualistic conception of the human mind to do cognitive psychology / cognitive science. You are actually treading on ground that is more firmly planted in philosophy.
A Puny B.S. in Psychology with an interest in philosophy and cognitive science/psychology.
MOD PARENT UP! It's stuff like this that make slashdot worth reading, even if the news articles are crap (like this one is).
A very simple biological take on on the brain is that simply, neurons and synapses just don't work on the quantum scale. Patricia Churchland (rightfully) mocks Penrose's idea as being akin to pixie dust in the synapses. Penrose makes his first error (as you allude to) in his silly conception of free will vs. determinism and randomness. Then he just piles up the blunders.
The only people that buy into Penrose's views on consciousness are silly people easily influenced and bamboozled by bullshit. Frankly it's shameful that people are paying him any mind, in a sane world nobody would know Penrose's view on consciousness because it is so without merit that it need not be mentioned. Perhaps it gets attention just because it serves as an example on how not to approach the question of consciousness.
The fact that you would even suggest this shows how completely and absolutely ignorant you are of the subject matter. Please refrain from commenting until you've at least read some wikipedia articles on the matter.
In fact, a (related) question that you haven't considered that philosophers and scientists discuss that comes prior to the question, "Is consciousness real?" is, "What is consciousness?" And there is no full agreement, leading many to suspect that the question, "Is consciousness real?" is either meaningless or answered with, "no," because if you cannot even agree upon a working definition, then perhaps the concept itself should be further scrutinized. Many hold that "consciousness," considered in regards to what one normally understands upon hearing the word, is merely something like an illusion. This line of thought is particularly influential to functionalists and eliminativists.
Except nobody is getting career-level positions these days unless they're super-lucky or ubermensch. Good looking finding a decent job in this economy.
Haha, oh, a job, that's a good one.
Play Civ 4 or 5, and you'll FUCKING FORGET TO EAT!
Porn is often how terrorist use stenography to communicate amongst each other covertly.
Shut the fuck up you fucking hippie moron, he is correct. Go swallow botulism.
It's quite simple. They don't. Oh, naturally you want governments to tax people because you like (some of) what they do for you, but that isn't actually a moral justification, is it?
Good point, Anonymous Coward.
Hah, when you're anonymous it's easier to debate because personal qualities of the people making the arguments are unknown; therefore, the arguments are more likely to stand on their own (although people do speculate).
That "stand behind it" crap is really all just manly-sounding bullshit.
Nikkos needs to shut up.