A scientific study uses science and a regular study does not. Is that a simple enough explanation for you.DC wrote:What quantifies a scientific study then
Woman shares her story about how hemp oil cured her of Crohn
-
Stanky Danky
- Posts: 973
- Joined: Fri 27th Nov 2009 08:59 am
- Location: YOUR MOTHERS PANTIES
-
hardboiled
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon 2nd Mar 2009 02:03 am
- Location: Canadia
Scientists.DC wrote:What quantifies a scientific study then, for that matter, what quantifies the words science and scientist
Psychology ain't a science. It's a humanity. Just like sociology, and anthropology, archeology, etc. etc. etc.
A 'science' demand quantitative underpinning, and development of physical laws to become a recognized science.
Naturally, there are 'doctors' of economics out there who ask to be called Dr.
Thats the same as calling Kermit the Frog the worlds first talking amphibian
Actually Psychology is a Social Science, which is indeed distinct from the Natural Sciences such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology but a science none-the-less. Natural Science and Social Science are both very distinct from the Humanities even if some social sciences are sometimes incorrectly described as humanities. Psychology may be taught in the humanities faculty of a university but its undoubtedly a social science and not a humanity. In fact many social sciences such as archaeology, economics, geography and linguistics are taught in arts faculties but they are not humanities which include art, music, law, literature, performance arts, and philosophy etc.
But the contention that philosophy has no place in science is insane and completely ignorant.
Since the dots need joining, before the 1800's scientists were called, wait for it, Natural Philosophers.
The word scientist is credited by Webster's to originate in the 1830s. Before that we had philosophers, who applied logic to the natural world.
Newton was a scientist right? On that much you must agree!
Philosophy is basis of science. Natural Philosophy is precursor of the modern Natural Sciences i.e. Chemistry, Biology (including zoology, botany and medicine), Physics, Astronomy, Geoscience and the various cross-disciplines.
Formal Science includes things like mathematics and Logic. Logic is certainly a concern of the philosophers.
Karl Popper said that the central question in the philosophy of science was distinguishing science from non-science. Which is part of what Niall is interested in here (i believe).
But the contention that philosophy has no place in science is insane and completely ignorant.
Since the dots need joining, before the 1800's scientists were called, wait for it, Natural Philosophers.
The word scientist is credited by Webster's to originate in the 1830s. Before that we had philosophers, who applied logic to the natural world.
Isaac Newton's 1687 scientific treatise is known as The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.
Newton was a scientist right? On that much you must agree!
Philosophy is basis of science. Natural Philosophy is precursor of the modern Natural Sciences i.e. Chemistry, Biology (including zoology, botany and medicine), Physics, Astronomy, Geoscience and the various cross-disciplines.
Formal Science includes things like mathematics and Logic. Logic is certainly a concern of the philosophers.
Karl Popper said that the central question in the philosophy of science was distinguishing science from non-science. Which is part of what Niall is interested in here (i believe).
Simple yup, an explanation...nah.Stanky Danky wrote:A scientific study uses science and a regular study does not. Is that a simple enough explanation for you.DC wrote:What quantifies a scientific study then
So science isn't....
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
...and knowledge isn't....
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
...and a study isn't....
1. application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection: long hours of study.
2. the cultivation of a particular branch of learning, science, or art: the study of law.
3. Often, studies. a personal effort to gain knowledge: to pursue one's studies.
4. something studied or to be studied: Balzac's study was human nature.
5. research or a detailed examination and analysis of a subject, phenomenon, etc.: She made a study of the transistor market for her firm.
6. a written account of such research, examination, or analysis: He published a study of Milton's poetry.
7. a well-defined, organized branch of learning or knowledge.
8. zealous endeavor or assiduous effort.
9. the object of such endeavor or effort.
....and Scientists aren't...
1. an expert in science (see science), esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.
2. a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods.
....and 'scientific' methods aren't....
1. a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
2. a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it.
3. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
Ya need some sort of special 'scientist' badge to do a 'scientific' study, or question one?.
-
Stanky Danky
- Posts: 973
- Joined: Fri 27th Nov 2009 08:59 am
- Location: YOUR MOTHERS PANTIES
Over complicate it any way you guys want. The fact is there was no science used in any of the schizo studies. All the studies I've looked at are sniffing alot of maybe's and if's. Here's an interesting bit from a Time magazine article about US schizo rates and marijuana use.
But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.
But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.
Going by the definition of the words is over complicating things?. lol Hmm ok....but if you don't go by the definition of the word, what do you mean when you say the word.."The fact is there was no science used in..." There was no what used?. According to you...What ..is..science?. If you meant Scientific method?.Ok, but..erm..again... if it's only going to over complicate things going by the definition of the word, what do you mean when you say the word 'scientific'. Perhaps a less simplified version of the simple explanation might help for us simpletons. Plus, for future reference, so everybody knows what they're educated enough to talk about. What's the least amount of 'knowledge' needed in a subject to be able to question the results of people you define as 'scientists' of that subject and what does somebody who isn't what you define as a 'scientist' need to do to become what you define as a 'scientist'?......lucky guess, some science?. I think I've passed that street sign before!?!. 
-
hardboiled
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon 2nd Mar 2009 02:03 am
- Location: Canadia
Can't roll with that.colinzeal wrote:Actually Psychology is a Social Science, which is indeed distinct from the Natural Sciences such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology but a science none-the-less.
Science is distinct from non-science by the lack of laws, or foundation. Philosophy - while potentially profound - ain't science. Same with the social 'sciences', because they are relative to time and place and individual. Our personal truths are reality, but only our own. It's also a reason why we don't leech anymore.
Scientific laws are constructed from physical reality. Humanities - including the social sciences - hold no bottom line quantitative truth.
edit: ...in my opinion....
Scientific laws are there for a reason. Humanities (or social sciences) can't posit the same.
knew you wouldn't 
you are of course titled to your opinions.
Science from the latin word for knowledge means any systematic knowledge that is capable of making a correct prediction. In a more modern sense it means any system of acquiring knowledge through the scientific method or the organised body of knowledge acquired through such research.
As such many more branches of knowledge than just the physical sciences qualify as science.
Also I didnt claim philosophy was a science just that it had a valid contribution to make to science, even in the modern world, so should not be dismissed. Though please note that my comments on philosophy were not actually aimed at you particularly.
On a personal note I happen to believe that certain social sciences and Psychology in particular are in relative infancy and not able to make the same universal predictions of the physical sciences. And psychology in particular is about to be put in its place by (the more solidly based) neuroscience in the coming years. However I think it a bit silly to rubbish any of the useful things it has to say about human behaviour etc as being complete non-science. Psychology (and indeed other social sciences/humanities) has made many useful observations about our world, if not the world beyond our "sphere".
you are of course titled to your opinions.Science from the latin word for knowledge means any systematic knowledge that is capable of making a correct prediction. In a more modern sense it means any system of acquiring knowledge through the scientific method or the organised body of knowledge acquired through such research.
As such many more branches of knowledge than just the physical sciences qualify as science.
Also I didnt claim philosophy was a science just that it had a valid contribution to make to science, even in the modern world, so should not be dismissed. Though please note that my comments on philosophy were not actually aimed at you particularly.
On a personal note I happen to believe that certain social sciences and Psychology in particular are in relative infancy and not able to make the same universal predictions of the physical sciences. And psychology in particular is about to be put in its place by (the more solidly based) neuroscience in the coming years. However I think it a bit silly to rubbish any of the useful things it has to say about human behaviour etc as being complete non-science. Psychology (and indeed other social sciences/humanities) has made many useful observations about our world, if not the world beyond our "sphere".
-
hardboiled
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon 2nd Mar 2009 02:03 am
- Location: Canadia