This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Religious gullibility

#21almasbaby(Topic Creator)Posted 3/28/2013 1:06:20 PM
It may be that natural selection chose those who thought or felt a certain way. The problem is that there's so many different thoughts and feelings you have to wonder what is a spandrel and what actually was adaptive. I think there's a lot of speculation on this that is far from scientific.

For instance, one of the most popular examples of EP is the guy who survives because he ran from a stick he thought might be a snake compared to the guy who went to have a closer look. It's the first guy who is our ancestor because the second guy found out the hard way that it was a snake and never got a chance to reproduce and pass on his genes. It's laughable.
#22Julian_CaesarPosted 3/28/2013 8:05:34 PM
From: almasbaby | #015
I use to love EP when I first came across it. It seemed to explain so much. Now, I think it's just imaginary thinking born of science, but not really science itself.


Social psychology in general is a razor's edge between observation and experimentation. The "purer" you get in either direction, the less of the other you get...i.e. the more "observational" a study is the less "experimental" value it has, and vice-versa. Observation is strong in seeing honest behaviors and weak in reproducibility; experimentation is the opposite, although you can be unethical and lie your ass off to the subjects and get better results :D

What I mean is that yes, social psychology is science...but it has to deal with its own form of the uncertainty principle. Just as momentum and position are not knowable simultaneously, so too the "honesty" of a behavior and its "applicability" are difficult to figure out simultaneously. You may use observation to know a person's true behaviors more accurately, but without the experimental structure in place you have TONS of variables to deal with and the findings are less applicable to anyone else (besides the person who is being observed). And the more you make it "experimental" by controlling for variables, the less "honest" the behaviors will be.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#23FingerpuppetPosted 3/31/2013 1:41:32 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: almasbaby | #015
I use to love EP when I first came across it. It seemed to explain so much. Now, I think it's just imaginary thinking born of science, but not really science itself.


Social psychology in general is a razor's edge between observation and experimentation. The "purer" you get in either direction, the less of the other you get...i.e. the more "observational" a study is the less "experimental" value it has, and vice-versa. Observation is strong in seeing honest behaviors and weak in reproducibility; experimentation is the opposite, although you can be unethical and lie your ass off to the subjects and get better results :D

What I mean is that yes, social psychology is science...but it has to deal with its own form of the uncertainty principle. Just as momentum and position are not knowable simultaneously, so too the "honesty" of a behavior and its "applicability" are difficult to figure out simultaneously. You may use observation to know a person's true behaviors more accurately, but without the experimental structure in place you have TONS of variables to deal with and the findings are less applicable to anyone else (besides the person who is being observed). And the more you make it "experimental" by controlling for variables, the less "honest" the behaviors will be.


The problem with psychology is that you lose the ability to study things in their true form because you can't control it. When you control it, you then lose the ability to see things in their true form because it's not natural. In order to get the big picture, one has to do many, many, many studies of either:

1. Very specific things that must be painstakingly pieced together
2. A bunch of case studies (so that external factors may be eliminated)

And that's a huge deal. Psychology advances at a snail's pace compared to other sciences (the exception in psychology being neurology, but then that crosses into anatomy and medicine) due to how difficult it is to figure out what's going on...

So now you see why I prefer physics over psychology. I can spend four billion dollars and four years to know that I'm right as opposed to three hundred thousand dollars and twelve years.
---
The problem starts when we are having a discussion just fine and you come along and derail the topic because you can't stand us all having the same definition.