UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
LOL @ almost monopoly. my wife just got done with her doctorate and if her peers were representative in any way, your statement is far from true.
abstinence only christians in your face again
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do i support a program that aims for equality (without mandating it) among college admissions?
i sure as shit do. why don't you?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you example is beyond retarded, like your million dollar min wage.
subjective feelings can quite easily be quantified objectively and accurately, otherwise psychology as we know it would basically not exist.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why is it wrong to shoot for equality within institutions that have a known history of discriminating against minorities?
we haven't even completely eradicated "separate but equal" among primary and secondary education, the deck is still stacked against some and in favor of others. why would you consider it wrong to end the perpetuation of such in our institutions of higher learning?
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
The fact that you constantly try to brag about your sex life says a lot about your desperation to be accepted by your peers. Pathetic.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
because "kinky mitt romney missionary" was supposed to make you all jealous.
we actually only did spoons and then doggy though to be honest. i just needed an excuse to drop this photo.
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
I think it was more like this...because "kinky mitt romney missionary" was supposed to make you all jealous.
we actually only did spoons and then doggy though to be honest. i just needed an excuse to drop this photo.
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Attaboy Bucky!
Uncle Anal strikes again.
Uncle Anal strikes again.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Name one thing psychology has proven?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Kinda sad he'd nothing better to do on a Fri night than post his fantasy pics about Rand Paul...
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
you support an action that puts a group over the individual
each individual has the right to equality, but you will take this away based on race or whatever fashionable criteria of the moment
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
i believe that all individuals should be treated equally in the present time
i do not believe an individual should suffer from bias because of race
you are advocating that race or other forms of minority should be the deciding factor
i believe ability and merit should decide
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
CBT is the main form of therapy offered in the uk to most people who use the NHS so therefore it scores higher than other forms, this does not indicate how successful it is overall
so its the better of the bunch but still nothing to celebrate
and there really is little alternative on offer, hence almost monopoly
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
yes........close them. burn them even. stop taking my money, and I will see to my childrens education and it will not be that drivel. indoctrination centers. pre-prison.......or military......take your choice.
the Trivium is an education. that nonsense is for producing good little machines, not thinking creatures.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
reported to mods as a disgusting melange of pork by-products, injected with salt, nitrates, and sulfates, and sealed in a tin........and they are not happy
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Then you need to get the universities to change their curricular descriptions, until then, I and everyone else will continue to distinguish the brands of science as such. The good news for you is that your PC ilk are drawn into those fields so all you have to do is let them know that soft science means not real science and they'll help you change it. Until then, you just sound like the lone butthurt screaming little girl who is so easily offended that a term that's been acceptable for decades no longer means what it used to and needs to be changed. This can be your new cause dude.
AlecTheGardener
Well-Known Member
*sigh*
Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor and legitimacy.[1][2][3] Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard" while the social sciences are usually described as "soft".[3]
Definition
Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions; performing controlled experiments; relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models; a high degree of accuracy and objectivity; and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[2][5][6][7][8] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development" and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with physics and chemistry typically at the top, biology in an intermediate position and the social sciences at the bottom.[4][9]
Philosophers and sociologists of science have not been able to confirm the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness in empirical studies. Supposedly more "developed" hard sciences do not in fact have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results.[10] Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. Psychologists use controlled experiments and economists use mathematical modelling, but as social sciences both are usually considered soft sciences,[1][2] while natural sciences such as biology do not always aim to generate testable predictions.[6] There are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs,[4][11] and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords.[12]
Criticism
Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields,[2] or simply not scientific at all.[13] It has been argued that this partly is because, although they often study more complex phenomena than natural sciences, social science findings are more likely to intersect with everyday experience and are therefore dismissed as "obvious or insignificant".[8][14] Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it.[3] In the 1980s mathematician Serge Lang successfully blocked influential political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's admission to the US National Academy of Sciences, describing Huntington's use of mathematics to quantify the relationship between factors such as "social frustration" (Lang asked Huntington if he possessed a "social-frustration meter") as "pseudoscience".[8][15][16] During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science,[17][18] and proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether.[14][19] Both of these incidents prompted critical discussion of the distinction between hard and soft sciences.[8][14]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I just thought I would give you two a common ground to work with.
Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor and legitimacy.[1][2][3] Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard" while the social sciences are usually described as "soft".[3]
Definition
Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions; performing controlled experiments; relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models; a high degree of accuracy and objectivity; and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[2][5][6][7][8] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development" and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with physics and chemistry typically at the top, biology in an intermediate position and the social sciences at the bottom.[4][9]
Philosophers and sociologists of science have not been able to confirm the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness in empirical studies. Supposedly more "developed" hard sciences do not in fact have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results.[10] Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. Psychologists use controlled experiments and economists use mathematical modelling, but as social sciences both are usually considered soft sciences,[1][2] while natural sciences such as biology do not always aim to generate testable predictions.[6] There are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs,[4][11] and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords.[12]
Criticism
Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields,[2] or simply not scientific at all.[13] It has been argued that this partly is because, although they often study more complex phenomena than natural sciences, social science findings are more likely to intersect with everyday experience and are therefore dismissed as "obvious or insignificant".[8][14] Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it.[3] In the 1980s mathematician Serge Lang successfully blocked influential political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's admission to the US National Academy of Sciences, describing Huntington's use of mathematics to quantify the relationship between factors such as "social frustration" (Lang asked Huntington if he possessed a "social-frustration meter") as "pseudoscience".[8][15][16] During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science,[17][18] and proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether.[14][19] Both of these incidents prompted critical discussion of the distinction between hard and soft sciences.[8][14]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I just thought I would give you two a common ground to work with.
AlecTheGardener
Well-Known Member
Based on the definition above Buck we can use soft and hard as a spectrum and ALWAYS apply the term in some way that is accurate.
Perhaps terming something absolutely as a soft science is incorrect. But it is a colloquialism after all.
Perhaps terming something absolutely as a soft science is incorrect. But it is a colloquialism after all.
Last edited: