Education Jobs

[KanadaHye]

Re: Education Jobs

I'm sure that's it if that's what your "brain" leads you to believe.

[Siggie]

Re: Education Jobs

I think the problem is that you feel somewhat insulted by the mention that perhaps the field of "science" that you're involved in isn't one of the hard sciences. That's understandable but emotion should never get in the way of judgement.

I'm sure that's it if that's what your "brain" leads you to believe.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Education Jobs

Nope, that's not what I mean because that's just fraud. You're building strawmen to stand in for science now? You use the exception of fraud?
As I said, you don't understand sampling (or science based on that comment), so it's probably better to just stop.

If you have actually come across a peer-reviewed manuscript where you feel the researchers did that, please share the citation, I'd like to write a critique to use it to educate others about how not to do science (I'm 100% serious).

I think the problem is that you feel somewhat insulted by the mention that perhaps the field of "science" that you're involved in isn't one of the hard sciences. That's understandable but emotion should never get in the way of judgement.

[Siggie]

Re: Education Jobs

Oh, you mean... it's like elections. The outcome can be rigged by choosing a specific subset which favours your bias.

Nope, that's not what I mean because that's just fraud. You're building strawmen to stand in for science now? You use the exception of fraud?
As I said, you don't understand sampling (or science based on that comment), so it's probably better to just stop.

If you have actually come across a peer-reviewed manuscript where you feel the researchers did that, please share the citation, I'd like to write a critique to use it to educate others about how not to do science (I'm 100% serious).

[KanadaHye]

Re: Education Jobs

You don't understand sampling. Even in physics if they draw conclusions about black holes, they're inferring about a population from an observed sample.

Oh, you mean... it's like elections. The outcome can be rigged by choosing a specific subset which favours your bias.

[Siggie]

Re: Education Jobs

As I mentioned before, many of the studies in the fields which I consider "less scientific" results in findings that are true for a particular group but not for individuals. For this reason alone, if a finding can't be applied universally (or at least globally), it isn't as rigid as those that can.

You don't understand sampling. Even in physics if they draw conclusions about black holes, they're inferring about a population from an observed sample.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Education Jobs

You might feel the types of questions addressed in a field are more important, interesting, or for whatever reason more worthwhile than the types of questions asked/answered in other fields and that's perfectly fine, but it does not make one more or less scientific than the other.

As I mentioned before, many of the studies in the fields which I consider "less scientific" results in findings that are true for a particular group but not for individuals. For this reason alone, if a finding can't be applied universally (or at least globally), it isn't as rigid as those that can.

[Siggie]

Re: Education Jobs

As I stated, I can use the process of doing science in cooking food. That doesn't, however, mean it can be considered a science in the field of education. By "lesser" science, I mean that it is less precise than math and physics but has more rigor than humanities. The research involves statistics but the conclusions drawn may be true when referring to groups but uncertain for individuals.

Psychology for example wasn't considered a science in America and Germany until the late 1800's and most of the early works could be classified as pseudo science.

There are degrees for everything and classifications of sciences are certainly valid.

As Sagan said while there are no authorities in science, there is at best, "experts" and I am going to establish my own expertise here because I feel we're going in circles and beating a very dead horse as is so often the case with you...
I have 12+ years in higher-ed academia, 10+ years of research experience, extensive methodological training, a masters in experimental research, and abd on PhD in a scientific field, 4-year university level teaching experience (including in stats and research methods), and currently work in an applied research field in academia... I don't think it would be a stretch to say I have a better understanding of science than you.

There is culinary science, sure. If your research question is "What texture of ___ do people find most appetizing?" or "What method of broccoli preparation maximizes the nutritive value?" and you wish to set about to design a study that answers this question scientifically, then yes, that would be doing science. It's no less science than any other application of the method. The *VALUE* you see in finding the answer to that question is just that... a value judgment. Therefore it's subjective and that's your opinion. Perfumers and detergent manufacturers pour money into olfactory research for instance because they see value in that, whereas public grants and funds for olfactory research has been lacking by comparison because these granting organizations decide what's more valuable or desirable to know.

You might feel the types of questions addressed in a field are more important, interesting, or for whatever reason more worthwhile than the types of questions asked/answered in other fields and that's perfectly fine, but it does not make one more or less scientific than the other.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Education Jobs

Define what is a "lesser science." What does that mean? It's either science or it's not.

Please articulate SPECIFICALLY what differs in the process of doing science between physics and psychology that makes psychology a lesser science.

As I stated, I can use the process of doing science in cooking food. That doesn't, however, mean it can be considered a science in the field of education. By "lesser" science, I mean that it is less precise than math and physics but has more rigor than humanities. The research involves statistics but the conclusions drawn may be true when referring to groups but uncertain for individuals.

Psychology for example wasn't considered a science in America and Germany until the late 1800's and most of the early works could be classified as pseudo science.

There are degrees for everything and classifications of sciences are certainly valid.

[Siggie]

Re: Education Jobs

The part that political science isn't as scientific as formal, physical or applied sciences..... it's a "social science" . That's ALL Mos was saying. So yes, it is a lesser science... I can use the scientific method in cooking as well. Maybe we can call it culinary science? Sort of like calling a garbage man a sanitary engineer.

As someone who has never been involved in any scientific research, you are wholly uninformed as to what is and is not involved in such research. You are stating a conclusion as if you somehow possess some expertise that qualifies you for making this judgment in these absolute terms. If I am wrong, then please establish what credentials or experience make you an expert on the subject so that we are compelled to accept your CONCLUSION in the absence of any actual evidence. You're basically stating your OPINION as if it is fact. I have yet to hear a "why" other than "because it's a social science" which is a nonsequitor.

Define what is a "lesser science." What does that mean? It's either science or it's not.

Please articulate SPECIFICALLY what differs in the process of doing science between physics and psychology that makes psychology a lesser science.