Science!

[desert dude]

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/05/05/study-links-homosexuality-to-eating-grits/

This is right up there with David Rockefeller and his six heart transplants.

 

[CC Dobbs]

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/05/05/study-links-homosexuality-to-eating-grits/

This is right up there with David Rockefeller and his six heart transplants.

I am very surprised that you are able to spell 'Science' correctly since you've probably never seen the word before.

 

[desert dude]

 

[NoDrama]

"it turned out that eating grits makes your kids gay.”

 

[Da2ra]

Homotonin? LOL

 

[UncleBuck]

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/05/05/study-links-homosexuality-to-eating-grits/

This is right up there with David Rockefeller and his six heart transplants.

why did you join a white supremacy group?

 

[see4]

Oh sloppy! You so cray-cray!!

 

[see4]

The best part of that "science article", is the following piece of information:

A representative of Cracker Barrel, a Southern restaurant chain, says that orders for grits have dropped almost 40 percent since the study was released.

That speaks volumes to the type of people that eat at Cracker Barrel. They are either gay, a girl, or dumb as shit.

 

[heckler73]

 

[NoDrama]

Basically: Psychology and sociology aren't science.

Science makes it possible to perform the same experiment and get the same outcome EVERY TIME.

 

[heckler73]

Basically: Psychology and sociology aren't science.

Science makes it possible to perform the same experiment and get the same outcome EVERY TIME.

And by what method have you come to that conclusion?

 

[UncleBuck]

Basically: Psychology and sociology aren't science.

Science makes it possible to perform the same experiment and get the same outcome EVERY TIME.

then disprove pavlov or the bystander effect.

or just plagiarize something.

or spam rawn pawl.

 

[NoDrama]

then disprove pavlov or the bystander effect.

Conditioning is not science.

 

[UncleBuck]

Conditioning is not science.

so you can't disprove pavlov or the bystander effect then. thought so.

 

[heckler73]

Conditioning is not science.

It is a tool/effect which is (and has been) studied using methodologies of science by those you would call non-scientists.
I believe you are being harsh in your judgment, even though there is a reason one hears of a differentiation between hard and soft sciences. However, just because one can draw some fuzzy boundary between fields, it does not exclude them from the general definition of science, itself; the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[desert dude]

We have gone from homotonin to sociology, hard, like diamond-cutter hard, to soft. Science is wonderful.

Eat your grits, ya' homos.

 

[Harrekin]

And by what method have you come to that conclusion?

Psychology uses made up "theoretical" numbers to balance their equations...

So not sciency enough.

 

[heckler73]

Psychology uses made up "theoretical" numbers to balance their equations...

So not sciency enough.

Can you provide an example?

 

[Harrekin]

Can you provide an example?

Nah, I studied it for 2 years and decided it was total horses**t, that was a good few years ago now.

When "Professors" continually start lectures with justifying how it is in fact a science it is also quite telling.

 

[heckler73]

Nah, I studied it for 2 years and decided it was total horses**t, that was a good few years ago now.

That's not a very "sciency" opinion. I have only studied intro psych (breadth requirements ) but I was under the impression they dive right into experimental design and analysis in the 2nd term. I even had a lab requirement in that intro class and remember vividly participating in experiments to study the effect of sensory deprivation (among other things). I would definitely classify those experiments as being scientific; ergo, a part of science. They weren't as profound as my experiments with measuring the speed of light or decay of Radon gas, but they were still testing hypotheses and studying (human) nature with an intent of codifying some aspect of it.

I think you're perceiving that line between soft and hard science as a demarcation of science itself. That is unjustified, especially in lieu of an example from your perspective.