Scientific Thinking

[stevie667]

In response to the 'runs on water thread' which is starting to get derailed into the methodology of science, i though i'd start a new thread for that.

In my opinion science as a whole is incredibly intolerant of anything new and shiny that doesn't conform to current methods of thinking. There is an Aura of 'we are teh scientist, therefore we are better than you' which unfortunatly permeates a significant proportion of mainstream science. Whilst it may not be so overt, there is definatly the undertone.

For instance, i've read and seen so many cases where someone is talking about travelling faster than the speed of light or something of the like and the knee jerk reaction is 'Einstien said you can't so screw you' without much serious thought.

My opinions originally germinated in the realm of psychology (of which i'm assembling my virtual hazmat suit to enter) which is so desperate to be considered a science its almost amusing. Here if you do anything that isn't referenced, notorised, backed up with endless studies then your a crackpot/humanist end of discussion.

I once read someone comparing the upper eschelons of the scientific community to a street gang, where the only difference is one uses words and the others uses knives.


Of course feel free to discuss, but if you present an opinion that isn't my own, your wrong

[sapiens]

I haven't had the same experience with science as you have. I don't perceive a "better than you" attitude among scientists. I have seen scientists frustrated when people make scientific claims without any evidence.

Regarding your "Einstein" example, that does sound like lazy thinking - relying on an argument from authority. However, I may have acted similarly to the people you describe at one time or another. When I engage in the same argument over and over again without any logical resolution, I'm sometimes unwilling to do it again unless there is something new to talk about.

Regarding psychology, I find it difficult to paint the field of psychology with such a broad brush. I don't see a field desperate to be considered a science. I do see a field with a diversity of perspectives - some more scientific than others. I don't see a problem with requiring evidence.

Finally, what are the "upper echelons of the scientific community"? How are they like a street gang?

[ASU2003]

I feel that 'real' scientists are always willing to investigate and seek out the truth. I'm not quick to dismiss a water->2H2 + O2 machine or device, but I want to know how they did it (which sometimes patents or corporate interests understandably get in the way). But that is what the peer-review process is there for, and the way these stories should come out.

It is just that there are a lot of people willing to use their 'scientific facts' or research to further their agenda or to make them money.

[stevie667]

Originally Posted by sapiens

Finally, what are the "upper echelons of the scientific community"? How are they like a street gang?

I was getting hungry and wanted to round off my post then.

AFAIKR, the discussion was that the community spent such a long time debating who to accept into their great societies and communities, and where one bad word from a big kahuna could essentially end your career (i've seen that one happen to a friend of my fathers), alongside all the terratorial bias about who does what and when e.t.c

This was then compared to a street gang who went through initiation rituals, if you want to end someones career (i.e. life) you can use a knife instead of words, plus duking it out with other street gangs over who has the rights to what places.

He concluded that there were very few differences in base behaviours, only the way and the enviroment they were expressed in.

I'll see if i can find the book its from, i'm hardly doing it any justice with my description.

[Hektore]

In regards to the 'Einstein said you can't' What they mean is (I hope): Einstein put forth a proof saying that you can't go faster than the speed of light. Unless you have an argument of some merit against his proof, any discussion about traveling beyond the speed of light is moot."

You run into the same thing when people want to discuss alternate hypothesis to the theory of evolution. As it stands now, evolution has a mountain of evidence pointing toward it being true. If you want to act like you have a legitimate alternative theory, then you need to have good contradictory evidence (not that there isn't any, it's just a requirement) or you're wasting everyone's time.

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by Hektore

In regards to the 'Einstein said you can't' What they mean is (I hope): Einstein put forth a proof saying that you can't go faster than the speed of light. Unless you have an argument of some merit against his proof, any discussion about traveling beyond the speed of light is moot."

You run into the same thing when people want to discuss alternate hypothesis to the theory of evolution. As it stands now, evolution has a mountain of evidence pointing toward it being true. If you want to act like you have a legitimate alternative theory, then you need to have good contradictory evidence (not that there isn't any, it's just a requirement) or you're wasting everyone's time.

Thank you. You said it more articulately than I did.

[Jinn]

I think certain types of knowledge have more intrinsic value than other types of knowledge, especially when a discussion of the natural laws of the Universe are on the line. There is great value in personal experience and belief, but they are fallible and personal. They can't be extended to apply to all things, and they can't be repeatedly tested in a controlled way.

Science, on the other hand, is only valid when it is observable and repeatable in a controlled manner. For this reason, I hold it's 'worth' above anecdotes and beliefs of others, when they come head-to-head.

For the things that science cannot address due to their natural inobservability (supernatural occurrences, etc..), one's personal beliefs are probably the best bet. But in things that can be measured and quantified, science has no equal.

If someone approached me with something which ran orthogonal to current scientific theory, it'd better be a scientifically and naturalistically valid assertion. Someone who thinks they know 'better' than tested and re-tested scientific hypotheses is hovering very close to dangerous arrogance, and would be well-served to provide copious VERIFIABLE claims.

Many great scientific revelations came out of non-scientific philosophy, such as Einstein's 'mind-games' of "riding the wave of light" and "the compass". Until he was able to demonstrate them with sound scientific argument, however, they were just that - mind games.

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by stevie667

I was getting hungry and wanted to round off my post then.

AFAIKR, the discussion was that the community spent such a long time debating who to accept into their great societies and communities, and where one bad word from a big kahuna could essentially end your career (i've seen that one happen to a friend of my fathers), alongside all the terratorial bias about who does what and when e.t.c

As you suggest, I don't think that such behaviors are unique to scientists. I think what you describe are weaknesses of all people, regardless of their chosen professions.

[Willravel]

Science is a difficult club to get into for a hypothesis because theories are supposed to be reliable. If it was easy for a hypothesis to become theory, then the theory would be flimsy due to not being tested enough to be reliable.

[robot_parade]

The conservative scientific thinking that you dislike so much is in place for one simple reason: It works.

Scientific thought is by it's very nature conservative - science tends to build on what came before. Science tends to be skeptical of claims that the laws that underpin our understanding of the universe are rubbish, and likewise skeptical of claims of vast new theories.

Imagine a science adhering to your view - that it should be quick to embrace every new theory that comes along. That doesn't get you the science of Newton and Einstein, it gets you the science of Chopra and Yogi. I know which one I'd prefer. My point is, science *does* accept new things - but it requires a very high burden of proof. Several hundred years ago, mankind learned that the universe is governed not by spirits, wishful thinking, and magic, but by physics. We started developing what's now known as the scientific method. We trained scientists to think critically, to question, to hypothesize experiment. The fact that people want to throw that all away makes me both sad and angry.

Now, even though science is by it's nature conservative, and resists new theories, new theories *do* happen. Paradigm shifts occur. Sometimes people come along and fundamentally change our view of the universe. When they do, we give them fancy names like "Newton", "Rutherford", "Einstein", "Watson", and "Crick". But even these revolutions look more like evolution - high school physics is still mostly stuff that Newton would recognize. We don't have to calculate relativistic effects for the trajectory of the bullet that the hunter fires from his gun at the monkey as it drops from the tree branch. Netwonian physics is a good approximation for pretty much all earthly phenomena. They take relativity into account for things like the GPS satellites, though. Science builds upon science, and it bloody works. *That's* why we trust it.

To make an example close to psychology, which you are apparently interested in:

Just like the 'cars powered by H2O' article, I have a grand new theory for psychology. Instead of mental disorders being caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, or whatever it is you old fuddy-duddy 'scientific' psychologists think, I believe that mental disorders are caused by demons...er...no, make that 'thetans'. Yes, thetans. They're psychic life-forms that feed off the energy of people's brains. By using special techniques, I can measure the 'thetans' in people, and cleanse them of them. As I'm sure you can see, this will revolutionize the field of phsychiatry. Are you ready to invest in my enterprise? Would you like to make a donation so I can do more research? How about taking a training course so you too can treat your patients with this amazing new technique? First, how about you let me hook you up to my e-meter, and then we can talk about cleansing *your* thetans! For a small fee, of course...

Does this sound familiar? It should - I basically lifted the above from the scientologists.

Any time someone expounds on some grand new theory that topples all we know of existing science, we *should* be skeptical - not to the point where we ignore what they say, but we should say "fine, prove it!". In pretty much every case, 'they' fail to do so, no matter what it is - ghosts, esp, Qi, homeopathy, scientology, cars-running-on-water, perpetual motion machines, etc, etc. I'm not aware of a single theory that starts out by violating all known laws of science, and later turns out to be proved true.

On a slightly different tangent - psychology as a field *is* trying to be more scientific - more rigorous, more disciplined, etc. Just like all the social sciences, it's *really hard* to follow the scientific method when people (and especially people's brains) are involved. Hard, but not impossible. And the benefits of following science instead of bullshit should be pretty clear by now.

[xepherys]

Originally Posted by Hektore

In regards to the 'Einstein said you can't' What they mean is (I hope): Einstein put forth a proof saying that you can't go faster than the speed of light. Unless you have an argument of some merit against his proof, any discussion about traveling beyond the speed of light is moot."

False. Einstein put forth a THEORY that backed up not transcending the speed of light. That is different. A good scientist will always accept the possibility of the unknown. Even if it is tinged with doubt.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by xepherys

False. Einstein put forth a THEORY that backed up not transcending the speed of light. That is different. A good scientist will always accept the possibility of the unknown. Even if it is tinged with doubt.

No, actually, true. E=MC^2 is a mathematical proof. Relativity is a theory.

[telekinetic]

Originally Posted by xepherys

A good scientist will always accept the possibility of the unknown. Even if it is tinged with doubt.

Do you accept the possibility that I have the ability to lift myself telepathically and fly around? And survive soley on sunshine, and that I'm 1000 years old? Or, if I were to claim these things, would you have somewhat more than a 'tinge' of doubt?

[roachboy]

ok so maybe this is not the best thread to raise the question because i am unclear as to what it's about...but anyway:

where does this tendency to defend "Science" always come down to an opposition between "Science" (some Unified (and thereby drained of all content) notion of Science as if the contemporary sciences provide a single coherent account of the world and our modes of being in it (um....)) vs. "Loopy Shit"?

in any number of particular scientific fields there are types of work being done by particular sub-communities that has quite radical philosophical implications--implications that extend to upending much of what happens in the realms of normal science within the wider fields (o think maybe complex dynamical systems theory in the bigger context of cognitive neuro-science or cognitive science, whatever that is as a field)....if you defend "Science" against "Loopy Shit" you duck problems of the conservative-to-reactionary nature of many fields of scientific investigation which often follows from the institutional spaces within which they happen. there are any number of examples that i or anyone else could mention.

in history of science-type debates, this is pretty banal, the topic: basically it's a version of the debates that surrounded thomas kuhn's history of scientific revolutions. it comes back over and over when sociologists of historians of philosophers or anyone sociologizes scientific work.

fact is that scientific work involves particular communities which are shaped socially in basic ways by the contexts within which they operate. there is no "Science" in general--there are particular disciplines, each of which is made up of networks and modes of social legitimation and social reproduction. it is not obvious that agents in scientific area 1, sub-group/field A know or need to know anything at all about what is happening in discipline 4.
or even if there is a single coherent meta-discourse.

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by roachboy

fact is that scientific work involves particular communities which are shaped socially in basic ways by the contexts within which they operate. there is no "Science" in general--there are particular disciplines, each of which is made up of networks and modes of social legitimation and social reproduction. it is not obvious that agents in scientific area 1, sub-group/field A know or need to know anything at all about what is happening in discipline 4. or even if there is a single coherent meta-discourse.

Agreed. I know of "scientists" who work in the same building, who work on the same problem, who have no idea what the other person is doing. Each researcher approaches the problem from a different perspective and isn't interested in what the other person is doing.

Originally Posted by roachboy

i should say that there is work in quite a few areas that i know of within the sciences that has very radical philosophical implications which could, if formalized, upset the applecart of much "normal science" in the wider fields, and more generally.

For example?

[Hektore]

Whether Einstein actually issued such a proof is beside the point I was trying to make which is why I qualified it with "(I hope)". What I was trying to say by example (although it may have been a bad one) is that when you choose to put forth a theory (for whatever reason) that is contrary to the current understanding, you need to provide compelling evidence that the current understanding is wrong or needs to be modified. Scientific theories aren't made up and thrown around all willy-nilly like. I believe this is where a lot of the misunderstanding originates.

If I may attempt another example which I have touched on before - I don't care if you believe it or not, there is in fact a large volume of sound evidence which indicates evolution a reliable, solid theory. I believe that no decent scientist would outright say it is impossible that evolutionary theory is flat out wrong. That doesn't give you permission to make the claim that it is,nor does it make the argument against it any more or less valid. What it means is that if you are going to present an alternative theory then you also need to present evidence that supports your theory, demonstrate how evidence being used to support evolution does not actually support it or produce evidence that contradicts the current understanding of the theory. If you are going to change minds you need to do one of those three things.

When a person is referenced as an authority on a subject it is because they contributed a great deal of knowledge to the current understanding and referencing them is much more practical in a conversation that reiterating their arguments. If you want to question or call into doubt their work you should at least be familiar with it and prepared to address it. If you run across any scientist who doesn't wish to help you further your understanding or doesn't want to address a legitimate arguments against the current understandings it isn't because they're an elitist scientist. It's because they're either an idiot, an asshole or both.

[roachboy]

sapiens: i was thinking of complex dynamic systems theory in cognitive neuroscience/cognitive science in particular, but there are others in other areas as well--i'm just kinda fascinated with the processes bundled around notions of emergence and the difficulties they present for conventional modes of representation. there are other areas in physics and/or cosmology that i've got a dilletante's understanding of that would probably qualify as well.

[xepherys]

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

Do you accept the possibility that I have the ability to lift myself telepathically and fly around? And survive soley on sunshine, and that I'm 1000 years old? Or, if I were to claim these things, would you have somewhat more than a 'tinge' of doubt?

I would doubt it, obviously. But that doesn't mean it's utterly impossible. I accept that possibility under the strictest sense of "I don't KNOW, factually, that it is not the case", though obviously it is not likely based on what my current knowledge tells me. The funny thing about knowledge and fact is that they are both pretty fluid. It was FACT for a very long time that the earth was flat, was it not? During that time, few if any scientists argued the point because it was simply known to be true... as true as 1+1=2, and we now know it was not true at all.

Originally Posted by Martian

No, actually, true. E=MC^2 is a mathematical proof. Relativity is a theory.

E=Mc^2 is a mathematical equation that specifies the conversion of energy into mass (or vice versa). c in this equation equates to the speed of light, but doesn't proffer proof that nothing can transcend it, or even that c, being a constant, is truly constant. It is constant in so much as our ability to view it's speed from our perspective... which is part of the "Special Theory of Relativity". People have already been able to slow the speed of light in laboratory settings. That would make it NOT a constant. Also, quantum mechanics could make this more or less true down the road.

Regardless, E=Mc^2 does not prove that nothing can be faster than c. It's a conversion specification.

[kramus]

My Lady is a scientist. She is fascinated with the mind/matter hookup and investigates how concrete substances that our bodies manufacture impact less concrete things like our moods. Specifically she works in the field of psychiatry.
If I have some Loopy Shit thought she is able to ground me rather quickly, and does so without being an asshole. She also demonstrates in day-to-day life the value of the Scientific Method and how it is a powerful tool with many applications. Debate vs diatribe or decree.
Her work has been cutting edge for the last decade, and she constantly learns new things. A new field of research which cuts across her field of study was brought to her attention a couple of weeks ago when she was giving a talk. Result - she now has a new collaborator in her research who is as excited about what she can bring as she is excited about his work.
Scientific thinking in action - with a net gain for all of us.
I am a Loopy Shit artist type who loves the idea of More Going On Than We Know. I am quite happy to have a genuine scientist ground me when I get a bit "floaty" in my uneducated and flabby thinking.
The people I meet who work with her do not seem to be desperate to be considered scientists. They are too busy working with exciting, concrete questions and results in a very important field. One which will be exploding for the next couple of generations in its import and its influence.
My .02 cents

[stevie667]

Some good replies, certainly a couple of things have been said i hadn't necessarily considered.

But your definatly right about psychiatry Kramus, i don't even want to begin to go there...

[telekinetic]

Originally Posted by xepherys

It was FACT for a very long time that the earth was flat, was it not? During that time, few if any scientists argued the point because it was simply known to be true... as true as 1+1=2, and we now know it was not true at all.

<threadjack>
Not really. At LEAST since there has been anything resembling modern science (The Greeks around 4th century BC?) we have known the world is a sphere, and at no point in time have scholars in societies descended from that one reverted to accept a 'flat earth' model.

Also, societies such as some of the South American Indians and the Egyptians demonstrated far too sophisticated knowledge of astronomy and planetary movements to have believed in a flat earth, either.

So no, at no point was it a generally accepted FACT that the earth was flat. It is a pretty pervasive myth, though.

A better example probably would have been aether, but even that was only a theory, and was dismissed once more sophisticated ones that fit reality were presented. The development of increasingly sophisticated models for the makeup of matter is a pretty good testament to 'Science's ability to adapt to new information and data.
</threadjack>

[Martian]

Originally Posted by xepherys

E=Mc^2 is a mathematical equation that specifies the conversion of energy into mass (or vice versa). c in this equation equates to the speed of light, but doesn't proffer proof that nothing can transcend it, or even that c, being a constant, is truly constant. It is constant in so much as our ability to view it's speed from our perspective... which is part of the "Special Theory of Relativity". People have already been able to slow the speed of light in laboratory settings. That would make it NOT a constant. Also, quantum mechanics could make this more or less true down the road.

Regardless, E=Mc^2 does not prove that nothing can be faster than c. It's a conversion specification.

You'll have to excuse me. I'm lazy, and sometimes I don't bother explaining things that I think people already know or are able to figure out by themselves. It's a sort of short-hand, but I shouldn't do it.

You're right that E=MC^2 is a conversion factor, however if we combine it with special relativity it does create a situation where nothing is able to accelerate past light. In particular, we know (or it has been theorized and tested, if you want to get quite specific) that an object's mass increases relative to it's velocity. Running the numbers indicates that the speed of light becomes a practical limit, largely because of said conversion factor. I suppose in the strictest sense this might not make it a proof -- mathematics isn't really my forte.

You're right that the speed of light is altered. In fact, you may find in your reading that relativity already accounts for this by stating that the speed of light is constant in a vaccuum and not in all situations.

I don't claim to be an expert in any of this, but this is how I understand it. Ask me about cosmology and I'll tell you anything you want to know.

Regardless of which specific theorem we're discussing, the scientific method is a very sound er.. method for dealing with a very specific set of questions. It does very well in answering questions about the physical world, which is why it's so widely accepted today. It's been my experience in the past that people who take issue with 'scientists' do so due to a lack of understanding of how the method works and how and when it should be applied.

[xepherys]

Martian,

Now it seems as if we are agreeing, but from different angles. I don't take issue with scientists at all (in fact, once I finish my degree, I'll be one). The scientific method is, well... the best method we have. There just needs to be an understanding that what we see as truth today may not be truth tomorrow, not because the truth changes, but because our understanding of minutia and influences change and grow over time.

[MSD]

Science demands evidence. Based on known values of energy into and out of a water electrolysis/HHO combustion system, it cannot power a car because it does not produce more power than is put into it. If someone has proof of "over unity" energy, then they have to construct a working system that demonstrates it. At that point, this new source of energy will be tested, theorized, and researched until we find out what it is and how to harness it. At that time it is no longer free energy because we know where it comes from. However, time and time again, people claiming to have done the impossible and found free energy have been proven to have made fraudulent claims. Because of this, skepticism and careful analysis are necessary in approaching such fringe topics.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by xepherys

Martian,

Now it seems as if we are agreeing, but from different angles. I don't take issue with scientists at all (in fact, once I finish my degree, I'll be one). The scientific method is, well... the best method we have. There just needs to be an understanding that what we see as truth today may not be truth tomorrow, not because the truth changes, but because our understanding of minutia and influences change and grow over time.

Well that's a given. If our understanding never grew it would mean we already knew everything. I'm not so arrogant as to think that.

[Nimetic]

I think I can characterize some of the previous posters as saying that

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I wish I could remember which philosopher came up with that. Perhaps one of you can help.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Nimetic

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Carl Sagan.

[Sion]

Originally Posted by Martian

It's been my experience in the past that people who take issue with 'scientists' do so due to a lack of understanding of how the method works and how and when it should be applied.

I agree with this, and would add that those who view Science and Scientists as some sort of elite club or gang that cannot be joined should consider the possibility that he or she was denied membership simply because he or she is a poor practitioner of science.


On a side note, we should not be using psychology and psychiatry interchangeably. They are NOT the same. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor and is legally able to prescribe drugs. A psychologist is not. Psychiatry is considered a "hard science" while psychology is considered a "soft science".

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by Sion

On a side note, we should not be using psychology and psychiatry interchangeably. They are NOT the same. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor and is legally able to prescribe drugs. A psychologist is not. Psychiatry is considered a "hard science" while psychology is considered a "soft science".

How do you use the terms "hard" and "soft"? Is the ability to prescribe drugs a testament to the greater scientific virtue of psychiatry? Is this akin to the hierarchy below?

Math is better that physics
Physics is better them chem
Chem is better than bio
Bio is better than psych
Psych is at the bottom

[xepherys]

hard and soft are pretty static terms for sciences. Physics is a hard science. Biology is a soft science. Chemistry is a hard science. *shrug* It's just a term. It's not a matter of better or worse.

[lotsofmagnets]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

but I want to know how they did it (which sometimes patents....get in the way).

this is not true of patents. a patent requires the method to become public knowledge. the patent itself is just the claim to being the 1st and the "owner" of such a method for such a time. after 20 years it becomes general domain except under certain circumstances. having said that i haven´t studied patent law for several years so someone may want to rectify any inaccuracies in what i´ve said

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by sapiens

Math is better that physics
Physics is better them chem
Chem is better than bio
Bio is better than psych
Psych is at the bottom

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by xepherys

hard and soft are pretty static terms for sciences. Physics is a hard science. Biology is a soft science. Chemistry is a hard science. *shrug* It's just a term. It's not a matter of better or worse.

I disagree. The terms are used differently by different people. In the history of those terms "hard" has been associated with "good", "more scientific", and "more rigorous while "soft" has been associated with "bad", "less rigorous" and "less "scientific". Personally, I think that the distinction is more about political jabs between fields than any real assessment of the field's scientific value. I find it particularly inapplicable when comparing MDs and PhDs. I've interacted with many MDs who seemed to have only a limited understanding of the scientific method. I've also interacted with PhDs in sociology, anthropology, poli sci, and psychology who employed the scientific method in their work everyday.

[xepherys]

You can't really compare an MD with a PhD... they are both doctorate level degrees in totally different things. It's like comparing a PhD in Physics to a PhD in Social Sciences. Just because you've gone to school for a long time doesn't make you anything comparatively to someone else.

Also, Wiki entry. It's pretty accurate as compared to what I've always believed to be the difference and what it seems others I know feel the difference is.

"Soft" sciences aren't bad and hard aren't good. But, like the link above mentions, it seems that there's a common sense application of the terms. Physics is a hard science because labs are built, lasers a fired, and things are scrutinized. Biology is a soft science because much of it is guesswork, much akin to an MD making decisions base don observation with no real "proof" of the ailment. It's why people are misdiagnosed so often. It doesn't mean biology or medicine are bad, it simply means that determining concrete proof through the scientific method is not as easy. That is, of course, changing a lot these days, primarily due to genetics moving to the forefront and labwork becoming more rigorous and tests being made available that are better able to determine the actual problem rather than guessing the problem based on several possible symptoms.

[Willravel]

Psychology has studies and tests just like any other science. Psychologists work with real minds, real emotions, and real behaviors. They often make real progress and see real healing and real mental health as a result of applying techniques which were discovered using the scientific method.

I see use of "hard" and "soft" as being virtually meaningless. Science is science. Those who understand and explore science are scientists be you a neurosurgeon, an aeronautical engineer, or a marriage and family therapist.

[xepherys]

I'm going to have to disagree with you Will. Personally I think Psychology and Psychiatry are bunk. Here's why...

Every mind is different. This is both from the aspect of physiological chemical makeup to the aspect of beliefs, feelings and cultural/environmental differences. To suspect that x + y = z in anything more than a tiny portion of the world's population makes very little sense logically. Sure, there are some things that brain science has down pat, such as areas of the brain that perform certain functions and specific brain chemicals that regulate emotions and moods. The larger picture, however, is just that... larger. Far too large for modern psychology to be anything more than a whim. Much like "modern" medicine was 100 years ago. In another century or so, I think that will change drastically. For now it's a few notches higher on the science pyramid than phrenology.

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by xepherys

You can't really compare an MD with a PhD... they are both doctorate level degrees in totally different things. It's like comparing a PhD in Physics to a PhD in Social Sciences.

Sure, I can compare them. I can also compare the methods used by a PhD in physics to the methods used by a Phd in a social science.

Just because you've gone to school for a long time doesn't make you anything comparatively to someone else.

I don't understand what you mean.

"Soft" sciences aren't bad and hard aren't good. But, like the link above mentions, it seems that there's a common sense application of the terms. Physics is a hard science because labs are built, lasers a fired, and things are scrutinized. Biology is a soft science because much of it is guesswork, much akin to an MD making decisions base don observation with no real "proof" of the ailment. It's why people are misdiagnosed so often. It doesn't mean biology or medicine are bad, it simply means that determining concrete proof through the scientific method is not as easy. That is, of course, changing a lot these days, primarily due to genetics moving to the forefront and labwork becoming more rigorous and tests being made available that are better able to determine the actual problem rather than guessing the problem based on several possible symptoms.

I think that you place too much faith in the greater "proof" offered by "hard" sciences. I also think that your description of hard science versus soft science reflects many of the statements about the distinction between hard and soft that I made above. Independent of your wiki reference, I stand by my statement that the "hard" versus "soft" distinction is not useful.

[xepherys]

On a side note, other than therapists, do any people in the world actually consider therapists to be scientists? I'm not being a dick, that thought simply never crossed my mind. It's like saying the meter maid is a scientist of coin operated theory. Therapists certainly help people, but so do teachers. Teachers aren't scientists either, though they need to both teach science and occasionally apply the scientific theory.

therapist != scientist

Originally Posted by sapiens

Sure, I can compare them. I can also compare the methods used by a PhD in physics to the methods used by a Phd in a social science.
I don't understand what you mean.

Well, obviously you CAN. I can compare turds to flying pigs. It doesn't make it a useful comparison. I would think there'd be a higher level of contrast than comparison. But this is pretty much the stereotype from which came the saying "apples to oranges".

Originally Posted by sapiens

I think that you place too much faith in the greater "proof" offered by "hard" sciences. I also think that your description of hard science versus soft science reflects many of the statements about the distinction between hard and soft that I made above. Independent of your wiki reference, I stand by my statement that the "hard" versus "soft" distinction is not useful.

Hard sciences tend to work in theories and proofs. Soft sciences tend to work simply in theories. At least from my perception. There are certainly "proofs" in biology, but they seem much more fluid. There are a lot of things we don't understand about, say, subatomic mechanics. There are far FEWER things we understand about genetics (to this day).

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by xepherys

I'm going to have to disagree with you Will. Personally I think Psychology and Psychiatry are bunk. Here's why...

Every mind is different. This is both from the aspect of physiological chemical makeup to the aspect of beliefs, feelings and cultural/environmental differences. To suspect that x + y = z in anything more than a tiny portion of the world's population makes very little sense logically. Sure, there are some things that brain science has down pat, such as areas of the brain that perform certain functions and specific brain chemicals that regulate emotions and moods. The larger picture, however, is just that... larger. Far too large for modern psychology to be anything more than a whim. Much like "modern" medicine was 100 years ago. In another century or so, I think that will change drastically. For now it's a few notches higher on the science pyramid than phrenology.

Your statement regarding phrenology and a science pyramid reflects the hard/soft characterization I made earlier. Your statements generally seem to reflect a limited understanding of modern psychiatry and psychology.

Originally Posted by xepherys

therapist != scientist

I would say that therapist does not necessarily equal scientist. Also, MD does not necessarily equal scientist.

Well, obviously you CAN. I can compare turds to flying pigs. It doesn't make it a useful comparison. I would think there'd be a higher level of contrast than comparison. But this is pretty much the stereotype from which came the saying "apples to oranges".

If they both employ the scientific method, or purport to, we can compare them.

Hard sciences tend to work in theories and proofs. Soft sciences tend to work simply in theories. At least from my perception. There are certainly "proofs" in biology, but they seem much more fluid. There are a lot of things we don't understand about, say, subatomic mechanics. There are far FEWER things we understand about genetics (to this day).

Again, I think that your hard/soft distinction doesn't work. Theories and proofs versus "simply theories"? Independent of how you could possible measure "how much we understand" in one field versus another, the amount of knowledge amassed by field is independent of the methods used to acquire knowledge.


A different topic: This thread is about scientific thinking. How do people define scientific thinking or the scientific method?

[Sion]

Originally Posted by sapiens

How do you use the terms "hard" and "soft"? Is the ability to prescribe drugs a testament to the greater scientific virtue of psychiatry?

Xepherys answer pretty much covers the hard and soft question. As for the other, I'd say that due to the greater education necessary to become an MD, that yes, psychiatry tends to hold a greater scientific virtue than psychology.