Sort By:
Jul 6, 2010
Yes, yes, yes, Ben. That was intentional. Glad you cleared that up about your name. I had been tempted to comment on that "rules" thing. I did look up Kevin Moore and found a whole world (of progressive rock) about which I knew nothing. I leaned a little. I hope you've leaned a little too -- about re-reading what you are about to post. I'm afraid that "guy" has learned nothing and wish "kentucky" would either learn to be clever or nice... something else that "guy" is not likely to do.
Jul 6, 2010
@ Starguy: I'm not going to get drawn into a protracted discussion with you on this. Such discussions would be no more fruitful than a discussion I had just the other day with a "creationist", who would not heed any of my points because she dismissed geology and genetics as both "rubbish". I don't need to explain all over again how arrogant and ignorant it is to dismiss and entire discipline of science just becuase you don't like it.

I don't really understand what your particular problem with psychology is. It isn't like its some fringe discipline. It utilises the scientific method, has peer reivew, and uses normal scientific hypothesis testing. It isn't like homeopathy, which lacks all those three, and has the added disadvantage that there is no science to back it up, and that a study of Chemistry will render its findings incorrect. Again, I'm not dismissing it because I don't like it, but because by the scientific method it can be proven false.

Psychology is a pretty mainstream science. There are psychology articles published in cross-field journals like New Scientist. In fact just recently there was one about innatentional blindness. It was very interesting. Basically there was this classic experiment where a group of people were shown a video of two lines of people passing a basketball to each other, and were asked to count the arial vs bouce passes. In the middle a gorilla (well a man in a gorilla suit) walks right in front of the camera and pounds his chest. 50% of viewers or so fail to notice this. The point proven is that humans often don't see major events while concentrating on something else. It was of major influence in the debate about using phones while driving.

So it had a hypothesis, a proper test, peer review, published in a journal, scientific method, and made a definite contribution to the world. Adding to that mix "starguy doesn't like it" no more makes is nonsense than the fact that some Christians don't like the idea of evolution makes genetics and geology nonsense.

I have a very good understanding of science. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Right now I'm typing from a desk in a research park operated by one of the world's leading oil companies. I'm a biochemist. I wrote a post vigorously defending the scientific method and demonstrating some understanding of a good deal of sciences. I echoed may sentiments in the recent NewScientist special "Age of Denial". (No plagiarism, just echoed sentiments.) If I don't understand science, neither do the NewScientist, orthe editors of Science and Nature (both journals regularly contain articles from fields you personally consider to be rubbish by some arbitrary distiction you have made.) I think that's a pretty bold claim to make. But of course clearly you know best, as overlord arbitrator of what constitutes science. Maybe you should write to these leading scientific journals and explain where they have erred in heeding your wishes.

I'd like to also point out that your post didn't really respond to mine, it just ignored my points, reiterated the same points you had made before in a stronger tone, and insulted me. These are described in NewScientist's "Age of Denial" article as typical examples of the arguments of deniers and pseudoscientists. Such talk is depressing when it comes from a non-scientist. I deal with it day in, day out, I have a friend who is a hippie and dismisses anything with the world science in it as automatically wrong for no reason other than that she doesn't like the conclusions. But it is another thing coming from someone who claims to actually have an understanding of science. You are the reason many people dismiss science as rubbish and scientists as arrogant jerks. Maybe you aren't actually a scientist, I don't know (but if you are, I'd like to see how you react to someone arbitrarily telling you your field is junk just because they don't like a conclusion you reached) but regardless, your words are indicitive of everything anti-science under the sun.
Jul 5, 2010
Oh, now I get it, Ben is a rat and Garfield is a cat. Ha, ha, ha, ha, you are really hillarious. Or just a clueless engineer.
-3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jul 5, 2010
kevinmoorerules: You have no idea what you are talking about, so you come across as a pompous twit, and a windbag to boot. It is clear that you do not understand "science", so that you can't grasp the oxymoron of "social science". Kevin, or Ben, it is one thing to be silent and have everybody think you an idiot, and another to put it into a post, and remove all doubt.

Good day, sir! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ
Jul 5, 2010
@ Saywhatwhat - yeah fair point (you could also have made your address with one-third as many words I'm thinking :D)

I didn't really realise it was so long until I posted it, just kinda got carried away. Ah well, those who read will read... I think you can get the general gist without reading it all in full anyway.

By the way, my name isn't Kevin, it's Ben. Kevin Moore is my keyboard-playing role-model and favourite musician of all time. Hence the "rules". I wouldn't follow my own name with "rules" for a screen name, would be just slightly concieted :p. Look up Kevin on Wiki.
Get the new Dilbert app!