It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grumpy64
In the article, at least one of the scientists doing the retest was retesting a study he had helped to do in the first place and it failed.
The problem is that people in high places and even the average Joe on the street has the idea that if science says it and scientists did it, it must be definitive. They us it to justify the policy positions they take or endorse, but here we see that from a social science perspective, those studies may not even be reproducible in the broad sense in further cases.
So the idea that science and technology are able to centrally plan and control our every move is still very much in doubt because at least some aspects of science still have a long way to go to unravel the mysteries of the human animal.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw
...
AND neither of you know anything about social psychology (despite your professorial claims to the contrary). Fact. Sounds to me like you were teaching people how to CHEAT on their results. Yeah, they taught us that lots of quacks do that in Research to shore up their phoney theories. So - you are responsible for teaching them how to do that?
What university was this where you were the editor in chief and the professor of all those classes you claim??
I don't believe you. But then again, there are lots of crazy people teaching stuff like you do.
So, why is it again you aren't doing that anymore?
Which textbook did you edit? Source it please.
Because..why?
I am retired from teaching and I won't reveal the name of the
publisher I worked for nor the universities I taught at.
Nope, don't take you for an 'idiot'.
Do you take me for an idiot that I'd
give you any information that could personally identify me.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw
Because..why?
I am retired from teaching and I won't reveal the name of the
publisher I worked for nor the universities I taught at.
Nope, don't take you for an 'idiot'.
Do you take me for an idiot that I'd
give you any information that could personally identify me.
A "liar" however, is still on the table.
Can you at least tell us why you are retired?
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko
No, it's a "baby" science. People are working on it. Psychology is a relatively new field.
Shame on you.
"junk science" = The Bible