Methodology

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Methodology

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

-1- wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:28 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:01 am -1- wrote:

"Psychiatrists' work is somewhat predictive, although not on an individual basis, but on a mass scale. They will stay with precise accuracy things like (as an example) "out of 1000 schizophrenics 14.8 will commit suicide by age 28", although they will be hard pressed to point at WHICH individual ones of the 1000 in the initial sample will be the ones to kill themselves."

So how do we determine who to let loose upon society?
What's the point to psychiatry then?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
What do you mean "we"? You and I? or we as humanity?

It is psychiatrists who determine that, and I don't know the criteria they use.

The point to psychiatry is to make diseases more tolerable to live with, and ultimately, to find a cure for them.
Humanity.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Methodology

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

-1- wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:26 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:56 am -1- wrote:

"Psychiatric research is concentrated on chemical experiments on lab rats, and then on people. Opinion plays little role in the lab rat experiments, I would suspect."

"Lab rats." Give me a break. It's well known in science how unreliable those experiments are in predicting human behavior. No mention of human clinical trials?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
No, it is not well known.

Name your source.

This is the second or third time you use an argument that ought to be supported by data, and you claim something that is not obvious but only when backed up by recorded data. Which you elegantly avoid. It's time to own up to your opinions which you mistake for scientific facts.

So please present your source that say that lab rat experiments are unreliable.
Here's a source for starters:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livesc ... umans.html

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Methodology

Post by -1- »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:32 am Whatever works in the training. (you may not know that I've successfully conducted an experiment in sales with a very small sample during my career).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I did not know that. Wow. Any rats learned to sign complicated insurance forms? :-)

Oh, I mean lab rats.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Methodology

Post by -1- »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:41 am
-1- wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:26 am
So please present your source that say that lab rat experiments are unreliable.
Here's a source for starters:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livesc ... umans.html

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I checked out your source. It mentions three species: chimpanzees, rabbits and mice. It does not mention rats.

So your data is not based on research, but on opinion. Your data does not name rats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's A.
B. is that the article talks about failed experimentation. It does not talk about successful experimentation. Whatever it says is not indicative of anything, because it fails to present its point in the comparative discussion it needs, to make any reliable sense.

Check this out: I have flipped coins many, many times, and 140 times I failed in naming the face that would come up.

What is the percentage success rate in which I named the coin successfully?

Same difference with the data you presented.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Methodology

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

-1- wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:39 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:41 am
-1- wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:26 am
So please present your source that say that lab rat experiments are unreliable.
Here's a source for starters:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livesc ... umans.html

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I checked out your source. It mentions three species: chimpanzees, rabbits and mice. It does not mention rats.

So your data is not based on research, but on opinion. Your data does not name rats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's A.
B. is that the article talks about failed experimentation. It does not talk about successful experimentation. Whatever it says is not indicative of anything, because it fails to present its point in the comparative discussion it needs, to make any reliable sense.

Check this out: I have flipped coins many, many times, and 140 times I failed in naming the face that would come up.

What is the percentage success rate in which I named the coin successfully?

Same difference with the data you presented.
With my source, it doesn't matter if it mentions rats or lions, tigers and bears. The point is animal studies are unreliable and human clinical studies are the best.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Methodology

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

-1- wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:25 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:32 am Whatever works in the training. (you may not know that I've successfully conducted an experiment in sales with a very small sample during my career).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I did not know that. Wow. Any rats learned to sign complicated insurance forms? :-)

Oh, I mean lab rats.
I do not identify myself as a scientist as I only hold an AS degree, but I do identify myself as an analyst.

Here's a very good question for you and others to consider as we're in the science category. What do you consider to be a satisfactory-sized sample?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Methodology

Post by -1- »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:13 pm
With my source, it doesn't matter if it mentions rats or lions, tigers and bears. The point is animal studies are unreliable and human clinical studies are the best.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Oh, sir, it very much does matter. You, sir, and I, both spelled out "rats", and did not say "Animals". You are using a Strawman. You and I agreed on rats, and now you say we agreed on animals. That is so not true what you say. We agreed on RATS. Rats, rats, rats, go back and check every bit of conversation, I even quoted it for your convenience in the previous posts.

Why does everyone on this site invoke fallacies when they are cornered, instead of admitting they are wrong?

Is it so wrong to be wrong??

I mean, if logic fails to convince someone, then what remains? Brute force?

How do you apply brute force on a website? By calling names.

I want to stop before you, sir, DL, or I need to risk our own dignities and call each other names.

You failed in two counts to show that animal and lab rat experiments are not conducive to human benefit. You then applied Strawman to try to save your point. I am compelled to call you names at this point, but I don't feel like it.

Instead I am closing this argument.

ARGUMENT CLOSED. Peace be with you, DL, we'll meet at Phillippi. I mean, we can still talk about another topic, until you start using fallacious arguments again.

You see, I really can't handle those who use fallacies, and more importantly, i can't handle my own upset at them for using fallacies.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Methodology

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

-1- wrote: โ†‘Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:20 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:13 pm
With my source, it doesn't matter if it mentions rats or lions, tigers and bears. The point is animal studies are unreliable and human clinical studies are the best.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Oh, sir, it very much does matter. You, sir, and I, both spelled out "rats", and did not say "Animals". You are using a Strawman. You and I agreed on rats, and now you say we agreed on animals. That is so not true what you say. We agreed on RATS. Rats, rats, rats, go back and check every bit of conversation, I even quoted it for your convenience in the previous posts.

Why does everyone on this site invoke fallacies when they are cornered, instead of admitting they are wrong?

Is it so wrong to be wrong??

I mean, if logic fails to convince someone, then what remains? Brute force?

How do you apply brute force on a website? By calling names.

I want to stop before you, sir, DL, or I need to risk our own dignities and call each other names.

You failed in two counts to show that animal and lab rat experiments are not conducive to human benefit. You then applied Strawman to try to save your point. I am compelled to call you names at this point, but I don't feel like it.

Instead I am closing this argument.

ARGUMENT CLOSED. Peace be with you, DL, we'll meet at Phillippi. I mean, we can still talk about another topic, until you start using fallacious arguments again.

You see, I really can't handle those who use fallacies, and more importantly, i can't handle my own upset at them for using fallacies.
Since we're talking about animals, it doesn't matter if it's rats or another animal (btw I think you're confusing me with GIA).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Lurendrejer
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:25 pm

Re: Methodology

Post by Lurendrejer »

I think methods explains how you do What you do whereas methodology explains Why you do how you do.

For instance the example of a runner training have methods such as short interval sprints, weightlifting and longer runs. Here the methodology might be that an effective and efficient runner needs endurance, stamina, explosiveness, strength and so on, things that improves muscle activation for certain types of whatever running discipline might be in question. So relevant methods emerge from the methodology - Its like the difference from a purpose and a goal. Related but not equal
Post Reply