sapiens

What is "greater education"? What kind of education do you think is required to get each degree? How can "greater education", regardless of what it means, be a measurement of scientific virtue?

Again, I'm wondering what people think the scientific method or scientific thinking is.

kramus

Re "hard" science - anything you measure in an objective way to build on a knowledge base fits into that realm. The bio-sciences are so complex that there will have to be one heck of a lot of measurements made in order to quantify things as rigorously as, say, theoretical physics. However, if you look at a science such as geology or meteorology, which are solid sciences with "hard" applications you can see how they still are very fuzzy. We just don't know enough to say this earthquake or that hurricane will occur/act/be expressed in an objectively foreseeable manner.
I live with a Phd/Md who comments from time to time how that dual training impacts her more global, considered approach to both research and patient care. If you are willing to put 20 years into a post-secondary education I'm willing to bet you will learn to cover a lot of bases.
Whether you feel the psych sciences are bunk or not, they definitely provide quantifiable help for a lot of people who are in terrible distress. And being able to zero in on genetic markers and determine ever-more efficacious management tools for people in distress is a real science. One person responds to a course of treatment differently than another - this is more a case of complex structure differences inside the body. Different reactions mean we need to learn more, not that the science behind the treatment is invalid or weak. These innate differences between people are exacerbated by environmental factors - Nurture and Nature both having an effect.
BTW, I never knew there was an inducible class of genes which express themselves differently depending upon experience and environment. Probably obvious to some, not to me. Apparently it is a huge field of study with awesome possibilities.

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

Willravel

I'm going to cut you off here. I spent 4 years of my life studying psychology, and Sapien a lot more. My mother has her own private practice. While I appreciate that you may be an expert on many things, you seem to be a bit out of your element on this one.

Jinn

Therein lies your error; not all psychologists are therapists. Research pyschologists absolutely follow the scientific method, and endure just as much rigor as a theoretical physicist. Therapy is applied psychology, and focuses on using sound psychological theory to solve contemporary problems.

Applied physicists do the same thing.

In my field, there are computer scientists and there are programmers. Computer scientists draw from the science of Mathematics, Formal Logic and Communication Theory and use the scientific method to arrive at new, more efficient algorithms. Progammers, on the other hand, are applied scientists, and use their knowledge of the science to solve problems. They're no more scientists than applied physicists or therapists.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Nisses

Nice way of addressing his arguments there

Actually, you're providing an EXCELLENT example of that Aura of 'we are teh scientist, therefore we are better than you' that Stevie667 was talking about

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

sapiens

I appreciate the distinctions you made above. Thanks.
Will: It does sound a bit like an argument from authority.


---------------
I'm heading back to the question I posted earlier:
I think that some of the fundamental ingredients of the scientific method are
1. Determinism: The universe is orderly. Events have meaningful, systematic causes
2. Empiricism: Events in the world can be best understood via observation.
3. Falsifiability: A good account of an event should generate testable hypotheses.

A bit of an aside: A theory is not “just a theory” or “simply a theory”. It’s not a “best guess”. Theories are tools. Tools employed by scientists to understand their domain of inquiry. A good theory accounts for and organizes existing knowledge and generates testable hypotheses and predictions, leading us to new domains of knowledge.

The wiki explanation of the scientific method doesn’t do to bad of a job describing the scientific method, though I’ve only skimmed it.

Given the above, scientific virtue or merit of a domain of knowledge is not determined by how many years required to get a degree in the field or even the content of the particular field, but rather the extent to which the scientific method was employed in discovering that knowledge.

Jinn

I agree entirely with you sapiens, with the caveat that science actually requires naturalism, rather than the broader concept (as I see it) of determinism.

Not only does the universe have to be orderly and the events systematic, but they must be of a natural (rather than supernatural) origin.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

ring

Going back over the OP once again I was struck by something
that was interesting.

I can see the dynamics of the split between Psychiatry/Psychology.
The study of 'us', has never fit easily into any hard or soft
category. Some of those well steeped and versed
in this knowledge continue to feel more comfortable keeping
the science part of psychology,
and the emotional part of it seperate.

Psychiatrists are more known to have studied brain chemistry in depth,
Psychologists deal with the blended path of science and emotion,and so on..

As to what Sapiens asks of us....I will spend some more time thinking
about that.

Willravel

Evidence:

Psychology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychology
It's as much a science as biology, chemistry, or physics.

As for "bunk", give this a read:
http://www.allfreeessays.net/student...A_Science.html

roachboy

there are a number of issues on the table at this point and things are blurry because of that.

hard vs soft science seems to me a goofball non-issue. maybe this is because i am trained as a "social scientist" and have a quirk that makes me interested in the sociology of knowledge--so "hard" vs "soft"--or erect vs. flaccid, which comes to the same thing---seems to me mostly something that comes up in drunken imbroglios in graduate-student heavy bars between, say, a physicist and a biologist or either of them and a sociologist or historian. apart from too many beverages, what generally ends up leading our imaginary (and vague as to number) characters down this path to dullness is a sense of legitimacy or--more often--real or imagined threats to legitimacy. so it's an aesthetic question, whether one wants to validate counting things or modelling them by imagining it to be more erect a relation to the world than the relatively flaccid approach of someone who looks at bio-systems or, worse, how human beings think or, much much worse, how groups of human beings think and act. or the other way round.

it hardly matters.
this assumptions that accompany the separation of disciplines just make an already unfortunate state of affairs even more unfortunate by making it more than just dull in itself, but meta-dull, that it dull when it is repeated in conversations about the separation of disciplines.

there's another interesting set of questions that could come out of sapiens attempt to define scientific method. i have to go do something, so will get back to it maybe.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Nisses

I don't think Xeph disputed the fact that it can be considered a science, especially with a definition of science like the one from your essay:

"1. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. 2. a branch of knowledge, esp. one that systematizes facts, principles, and methods 3. skill or technique"

He simply claimed that the systematized knowledge as of yet is lacking. That there is still a lot of "bunk" or empty talk.

In this sense, phrenology too, is a science.

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

sapiens

Phrenology never generated any testable hypotheses that I know of. At least none that were properly confirmed.

ring

Thanks for expounding rb...

telekinetic

You forgot sociology

__________________
twisted no more

Sion

I used greater in the mathematical sense. I had the impression that more education (of a more rigorous type) was required to become an MD than to become a psychologist. A few minutes of googling has shown me, however, that while that may have once been the case, it no longer is necessarily true.

I retract my previous statement.

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

sapiens

Yes, that's what I was thinking of (though Randall Munroe wasn't the first to think of it).

xepherys

Will, I will just add this sample set of equations where science.x = hard science and science.y = psychiatry (and probably other soft sciences):

science.x + theory = work for outcome
science.x + practice = consistency

science.y + theory = work for outcome
science.y + practice = work for outcome

Assume that in 'science.y + practice', practice is the prescription of medication. How often will a psychiatrist prescribe a medication only to have an unexpected (or possibly bad) outcome and then have to try something else... and then maybe something else until something "works"? This process is repeated with each new patient. In 'science.y + theory' some building blocks are created, but there is no certainty how each patient will react to new medications (this does not include the chemistry behind pharmaceuticals ('hard') and the biochemistry of the interaction ('soft').

Now let's look at 'science.x + practice'. Once 'science.x + theory' is performed and an outcome assessed, 'science.x + practice' can be repeated with limited change or failure. Bridges have been built more or less the same for millenia (beginning with simple aqueducts in Roman times I believe) and they always work pretty much the same. You don't make a bridge the same way just to have one spontaneously disintegrate. It doesn't happen. That's the 'hard' vs. 'soft' argument AND the anti-psych argument rolled into one.


The scientific method, I believe, is well defined as:


1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


As for scientific thinking, I'll go back to an earlier post. I believe it is forward theoretical thinking, combined with acceptance of existing knowledge where it makes logical sense in its application, combined finally with an apt amount of understanding that you don't understand everything.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

guyy

The idea that the abstract is purer or greater owes much to religion, and is now mostly a quaint prejudice.

Math is less general than linguistics and philosophy. But so what? We need the signified as much as we need a structure of significations. Without either, nothing is communicated.

Willravel

I'm not a psychiatrist. Technically, I'm not even a psychologist (as I'm not licensed). What I do know is that solid and verified systems of diagnosis and treatment exist for each of these sciences.

What you seem to be assuming is that psychiatry is a guessing game. Well, from a perspective it is, but from that same perspective so are physics and biology, so I don't understand why you're isolating psychology and psychiatry.

Using your aqueduct argument (which is funny, because on a different forum I have a lively discussion going on about aqueducts right now...), what about building an aqueduct through mountains? What about building an aqueduct over a desert? What about building one that needs to go uphill? What about constructing an aqueduct that has to survive freezing temperatures in the winter? You see, science is about establishing systems, but it's also about accounting for the myriad of variables in the equation that exist in any applied science. Just as it's actually much more complex than one might think to build an aqueduct, it's more difficult than one might think to make an accurate diagnosis and then choose an effective treatment. One person might have had sexual abuse as a child just as one aqueduct may have to be built on a difficult environment. The difference between the two in their respective fields is academic. They are variables to be taken into account when using the verified scientific systems which are established and continually refined.

What I would suggest doing is asking questions instead of presuming that a science isn't viable, reliable, or unsystematic. I may only have my BA, but several TFPers are extremely knowledgeable in the area of psychology, including Sapiens.

xepherys

Will, what I'm saying is that once an aqueduct is built to withstand freezing temperatures, the ability to do so becomes a known. It can be duplicated.

Once a medication is 'known' to help manic depression, it still may or may not work in any given patient. It may also make things worse.

From this perspective psychiatry (and to a lesser degree psychology, since medication is not involved) is a guessing game. Or rather, it is in a constant state of theory. Physics is in theory until a general proof is made. Psychiatry is in theory for each new patient. That's why I'm isolating them.

Also, I don't believe it's not viable. It's been around long enough to be established. I also don't believe it is without a system. Lots of things have working systems. That doesn't make them a) science or b) reliable. I'm also not blasting on psych for shits and giggles. I do believe it helps many people. I'm just trying to point out, from the original topic of this thread, that the thinking behind it, while scientific at it's base, is all about theory and not about proofs. Proofs only exist on a person to person basis. That's part of why it would be a 'soft' science and part of why it's questionable as a fundamental rather than a foundation of guesswork.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Hain

I agree that psychology/psychiatry is a soft science, but due to the dynamic nature of the human body and mind. I disagree that physics is a hard science because it can be "proven." Nothing in physics can be proven- ever. Not even mathematics can be proven as the foundations of math state that it is in itself true. Physics has models that can be demonstrated to be accurate to the workings of the universe- again you can't prove them, just demonstrate their accuracy.

These models can be falsified- given new conditions. For instance, Newtonian verses Einsteinian mechanics. Einstein's model of the universe were shown accurate- Newton was wrong. But this didn't stop the egg heads at NASA from putting Sir Isaac Newton in the driver's seat when we went to the moon. Newtonian models are still very accurate- and unarguably much simpler than Einsteinian models- given that the conditions are not relativistic (speeds beyond 10%c).

Psychology, Psychiatry, etc, have so many conditions (some even unknown), which is why we get these medical guessing games (making shows like House, MD so entertaining). While psychiatric medicine may be a guessing game now, the varying conditions are no different than one whom tries to use Newtonian mechanics to describe what happens on a vessel moving at roughly 30,000 kilometers per second.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

roachboy

just as a proof is a simple procedure shaped by particular rules and based on particular axioms which cannot be demonstrated from within it, so notions of causation or regularity are frame-contingent. like hain said above, when you go past applications into conceptual underpinnings, things get murky and strange in almost any science.

there is nothing magic about a proof.
there is nothing magic about experiment.
both have a circular structure logically in that characteristics of the axioms recur through the proof, and frame-characteristics repeat through experiments.
made general, this distinction is the basis for the notion of paradigm in thomas kuhn's work on scientific revolutions--and he outlines several examples/parables of "normal science"--predicated on the confirmation-through-repetition of the prevailing community consensus--results in anomalies being classified as error--until an alternate explanation is developed (if it is) that refigures the underlying frames which enable information to be grouped, regularities inferred and "normal science" to resume its confirmation-through-repetition functions.

people have trouble with new shit. so in a general sense, it's not quite as The Dude tells us in Scripture: the "problem" is not that he is not privy to new shit--in a general sense, our collective affection for repetition, for the same, obstructs the making-coherent of new shit--unless it can be processed as a variant of what "we" already know. so in a way, there is no new shit. new shit is a variant of the old. until it isn't.

paradigms in kuhn are institutional ideologies, basically: you see similar problems in relation to ideologies all over the place, where-ever you look.
but thinking ideology is curiously enough a matter for the soft-to-flaccid sciences, and not something that the manly men who deal in formal languages will mess with.

such is the religious appeal of number, unexamined. guy is right, above.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

But what about duplicating an aqueduct capable of withstanding freezing temperatures when only limestone is available? Or what about duplicating an aqueduct capable of withstanding freezing temperatures when it moves close to the border of an enemy? Clearly, it's not as simple as just one problem. There are a myriad of variables involved in planning to build, building, and reproducing an aqueduct. No two aqueducts are exactly the same, just as no two minds are exactly the same. That also goes for neurologists.
Just like one method of making the aqueduct stronger may be to widen the base for one project, but using that same technique on a different project would fail because it's being built on an area that has groundwater and the weight would make it sink.
That's just it: it's not a guessing game at all. When you get your BA, they don't just hand you a copy of the DSM4 and say "good luck". There are systems which are established and have far reaching applications.

I'll use a common example: Ritalin. Everyone loves to dump on Ritalin, but most who do aren't aware of it's success rate. They aren't aware of any facts or figures about Ritalin. I've read hundreds of articles about Ritalin (because a family member was going to be taking it). All of the criticisms were unsupported and cited no studies. In point of fact, Ritalin enjoys a relatively high success rate (comparable to drugs given for physical ailments by medical doctors). While I don't have the data with me at work, I'll see if I can dig it up when I get home. Sapiens probably has access to a lot of information on it, too.

BTW,
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...a-news-comment

In other words, be aware that there is a lot of misinformation that's publicly accepted, and you have to watch out for it.
It's science if it follows the scientific method, which it does. It's also a science in a semantic sense as I demonstrated by quoting two well known and accepted dictionaries. Reliable? I'm still waiting to see any figures. Can you demonstrate that psychology and psychiatry aren't reliable?

xepherys

I feel that you are missing my point. When a patient has an issue with depression, there are many possible medications that may or may not work. The Psychiatrist listens to the patient, makes some decisions and prescribes what they see as the best possible medication. It may or may not work.

An engineer needs to build an aqueduct. He looks at the site and materials available, draws up plans, and then builds it. It works. Let's take it up to a modern serious engineering task. Skyscrapers. There is no room for failure in the construction of a skyscraper. But once plans are drawn up and construction begins and then ends, it has to ALREADY work. They can't look at it a few months after completion and say, "I don't think this grade of steel is working for these support beams. Next week we'll remove them and put some stronger alloy beams in their place."

The physics, the chemistry and the engineering all have to basically take place preemptively to the task, and be dead accurate the first time around before construction begins. The psychiatrist makes an educated guess, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, they make another guess. Do you see the difference?

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

The flipside: "A doctor listens to the patient, makes some decisions and prescribes what they see as the best possible medication. It may or may not work."

Can you demonstrate that psychology and psychiatry have a lower success rate? Is that even a fair comparison?
There is no difference. The engineer makes guesses based on the science and precedent just like the psychologist.

Can you demonstrate that psychology and psychiatry have a lower success rate?

Hain

I was going to make the exact point that xepherys did: in engineering, one must show that one's product will work before going into production. One can waste time, money, and at its worst, lives in even in the simplest of tasks. The experience of those before set up acceptable standards that will work.

The same can be said for psych'. My opinion follows. It can either be the young age of serious psych' science and research or the complexity of the body and brain, but decisions made even under the most careful scrutiny cannot be guaranteed yet in psych' science. This is why I do not perceive it to be an "exact science". Exact can be debated, but like I said earlier- Newtonian mechanics worked damned fine to get men to the moon.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

How specifically does psycholog/psychiatry not measure up to the same success rate or exactness of other sciences? I have yet to see evidence.

I believe very firmly that psychology and psychiatry enjoy less than favorable reputations which are not deserved as they're not based in fact but rather hearsay, rumor, and innuendo. After spending 4 years of my life devoted to developing my understanding of the science of psychology, I see no reason to believe it compares unfavorably to any other science. All I see here is more of the same unverified claims.

Please, if you have evidence of some kind, present it. Until then you are presenting unverified claims which carry little weight.

Hain

While a single personal experience proves nothing: a friend's brother clearly had serious issues, whom was diagnosed as ADHD despite the family insisting the doctor consider it to be a bipolar disorder due to the family's history of bipolar members. Now, I can't say if the family took the little hellion in for a second opinion, but he was diagnosed later to be bipolar and not ADHD.

There is a difference as physics and engineering have been around long enough that there have been objective standards invented, leading to detailed rubrics that future engineers and scientists must adhere to and promptly they will receive successful results. Application of psych' science is not yet 100% effective. Give it time and I bet it won't be like that.

How would you like us to verify it outside of personal experience? We are not experts in the field, as it is obvious, and therefore would not be able to provide adequate results. All I know is that I've had to meet with "professionals" that were useless in figuring out why I act and think the way I did. I'll then mention the horrid medical treatment my father has received that twice in my life had nearly killed him but was "not negligence" of his attending.

I have yet to have any experience that proves medicine and psych' are exact.

Yes it is opinion, but usually those come from personal experiences.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

By "family doctor" do you mean psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical doctor? A medical doctor is no more qualified to make a psychological diagnosis than a psychologist is to make a medical diagnosis.
Psychology's roots are in philosophy which could possibly predate physics, but that's immaterial. The age of a science does not necessarily correlate with it's effectiveness. Neuroscience saw it's beginning in ancient Egypt, but it only really has become useful in the past few hundred years.

Again, demonstrate why psychology/psychiatry is not as effective as another science. I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

Hain

Again, I lump psychiatry and psychology as another form of medicine, and I watched every episode of House, MD. He nearly killed the patients 4 times before having an epiphany. Like most of my decisions, I base them off of TV.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Baraka_Guru

I think the problem is we still know very little about the human brain and how the mind works. They can't even agree on the complete set of functions and purposes of sleep; no one really knows yet. Then we get to depression and other mental disorders. There is no surgical procedure, no immunization, no highly effective drug treatment. We are still learning about this realm of human health and biology.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Hain

And those Egyptians had some pretty damned big Pyramids, built by means we don't even understand fully today. I'd say far more advanced than their dabbling in neuroscience.


I agree with this statement entirely.

And Will, you have to realize, your profession is way harder than mine.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

Arguing from personal experience and presenting that evidence as a blanket study of an entire field is a fallacy.

Maybe I should put it this way: I had a shit math teacher in 8th grade. Seriously. He should have been teaching preschool math, not AP Algebra. Eventually it got so bad that I and a good friend of mine essentially took over teaching the class. I'm not making this up.

Based on this experience, all math teachers are incapable of teaching math.

Actually, I don't work in the field of psychology. I just happen to have gotten my degree in that area. I work as an administrator for a non-profit organization.

Hain

This is turning into, "My big book is better than your big book." My way of looking at it is that when following the regulated rules for engineering, my stuff will not break. If it does, meaning if I am wrong, I am wrong and to blame.

When you follow the regulated rules of psych'/medicine, people still can get worse/sick. This is why doctors can be wrong but not negligent/blameworthy. By following the rules and regulations of this science, it pointed to a certain conclusion- one that anyone else in this profession would have made.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

In any applied science there is the element of the unknown variable. This includes architecture. If you build a beautiful building, triple checking your maths and verifying it with all the diagnostic tools at your disposal, and it fails due to an unknowable variable (like groundwater making the surface unstable), how is this any different than a psychologist using a proven method on a patient but seeing it fail because something in the behavioral pattern of the patient goes unknown?

Hain

Had the architect ordered ground samples testing moisture and checked subterranean conditions, this would not have happened. Someone's ass is grass / Someone is going to be blamed with reckless negligence.


EDIT: I am not an architect, but I had a similar conversation with a colleague at my school about the Tacoma Bridge, and her professor stressed to her that "Someone's ass was held responsible" for not considering the natural frequency of the bridge.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

xepherys

Since we are failing to provide examples that are to your liking, I propose the opposite. In science, one deals with theory and proof. Currently, I believe it is your theory that psych is as effective as other sciences. Until you prove otherwise, I consider you incorrect.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

Burden of proof fallacy. You made the initial claim, therefore it's your burden of proof.

xepherys

Also, as Hain noted, architecture/engineering of buildings isn't really the same. If a doctor or psychiatrist misdiagnose, they are often not negligent. If a company builds a skyscraper and it crashes out of the blue killing people, they are ALWAYS at fault. There aren't really unknown variables these days when constructing a building. You can do ground xray testing and verify the solidity of the ground, take core samples to verify it's material makeup and other such tests. You cannot do an MRI of the brain and look at symptoms and be assured of making a correct diagnosis. They aren't remotely the same.

Understand that I believe psych is a very difficult field. I understand the amount of education and effort that go into it. I'm not belittling a psychiatrist for going through those motions. I just don't believe there's "a science to it". There may be underlying science that supports it, but the whole is not scientific.

How so? We are talking science. Science is either crap, theory or fact. Currently you are stating a theory, I am making statements of fact, at least from the engineering side. What statement of fact have you provided to defend your argument?

As an aside, Will, I hope there are no hard feeling here. I live for this type of debate... either both sides eventually agree to disagree or someone learns something. Either way, it's always a worthwhile expedition as long as both sides play nicely.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

I've provided more than you. I cited a LA Times article about the legitimacy of Ritalin and how those against Ritalin basically are talking out of their asses.
I've taken the military to task a number of times. No worries.