I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

[KanadaHye]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

Keep laughing instead of trying to learn something and actually improving your piss-poor knowledge of science.

Right... I keep laughing because you have no POSITIVE way to determine the validity of results using "scientific methods".

[KanadaHye]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

Do you think self-reports of childhood abuse will lead to lower or higher estimates?

I would say lower because children will overlook abuse to protect their parents especially if they were made to believe they were in the wrong and deserved the abuse.

[Siggie]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

Right... I keep laughing because you have no POSITIVE way to determine the validity of results using "scientific methods".

You use scientific jargon that you don't understand, (not surprisingly) incorrectly. Positive correlation doesn't mean what you think/thought it does/did, nor does validity.

For example: Positive correlation = x unit increase on one variable associated with x unit increase in another variable.

Validity: There are different types of validity, but yes, we can evaluate whether a study has various kinds of validity (internal, external, construct, statistical conclusion, etc.). Send me a scientific paper and I'll do it for you.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about science, you must first know something about it. If you're not talking about these things in the context of science, then say so and define your terms so that we understand each other.

[KanadaHye]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

You use scientific jargon that you don't understand, (not surprisingly) incorrectly. Positive correlation doesn't mean what you think/thought it does/did, nor does validity.

For example: Positive correlation = x unit increase on one variable associated with x unit increase in another variable.

Validity: There are different types of validity, but yes, we can evaluate whether a study has various kinds of validity (internal, external, construct, statistical, etc.).

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about science, you must first know something about it. If you're not talking about these things in the context of science, then say so and define your terms so that we understand each other.

I know what I'm saying. You can't hold a conversation like a normal person because your brain is stuck on science.

[Siggie]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

I know what I'm saying. You can't hold a conversation like a normal person because your brain is stuck on science.

It's the best tool we have for understanding the world.

When you want to talk about whether something is true or not, you propose to do it without considering evidence at all?
How are you going to defend your claim by saying "it's common ancient knowledge."

People also think it's common knowledge that "opposites attract," but then that's wrong, wrong, wrong...
Claiming something is common knowledge or common sense is a logical fallacy (or do you have a problem with philosophy and logic as well as science?): Argumentum ad populum. What's the saying? Ten thousand ____ can't be wrong?

[KanadaHye]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

It's the best tool we have for understanding the world.

Understanding people and understanding the world are 2 different sciences.

[Siggie]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

Understanding people and understanding the world are 2 different sciences.

No, science is science; there's not more than one kind of science.
It is the identical method of acquiring knowledge that can be applied to anything.

[KanadaHye]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

No, science is science; there's not more than one kind of science.
It is the identical method of acquiring knowledge that can be applied to anything.

Physical science will have the same outcomes no matter where you are in the world. It's universal. Social science will have different outcomes depending on the society of study. You can apply the scientific method to understand a culture but you can't develop a theory that would allow for prediction from one culture to the next. The idea of globalization is to impose a single culture on the entire world in order to make it "universal".

[Siggie]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

Physical science will have the same outcomes no matter where you are in the world. It's universal. Social science will have different outcomes depending on the society of study. You can apply the scientific method to understand a culture but you can't develop a theory that would allow for prediction from one culture to the next. The idea of globalization is to impose a single culture on the entire world in order to make it "universal".

Not everything in physical science generalizes either. You're just fixated on "place," but it's more about other things that varied with the place usually. You're also assuming that unless it's universal it's not worth knowing. Sometimes we're interested in only a particular context too. For example, if we want to understand the best way for students to learn Spanish in the classroom, we'd look at students and how they learn Spanish in the classroom. Not any other language and not in other contexts. It's all driven by the research question.

There are two obvious questions when we look at any scientific result/finding... 1) Can we replicate? 2) Can we generalize beyond the experimental (or study if not a true experiment) conditions?

[KanadaHye]

Re: I am Armenian and GAY. Not feminine, just masculine.

Not everything in physical science generalizes. You're just fixated on "place," but it's more about other things that varied with the place usually. You're also assuming that unless it's universal it's not worth knowing. Sometimes we're interested in only a particular context too. For example, if we want to understand the best way for students to learn Spanish in the classroom, we'd look at students and how they learn Spanish in the classroom. Not any other language and not in other contexts. It's all driven by the research question.

There are two obvious questions when we look at any scientific result/finding... 1) Can we replicate? 2) Can we generalize beyond the experimental (or study if not a true experiment) conditions?

So how many children are you willing to wreck to prove my hypotheses?