Mr.Samsa wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:Last year I did a MOOC by University of Geneva about global health, and one of the modules was about sedentary lifestyles. I propose ADHD is a direct result of forcing children to sit in classrooms for years.

Impossible as you need to demonstrate that the behaviors occur in a number of places outside of school, and that they are consistent and persistent across time.

What is impossible? What do I have to demonstrate?

I am proposing that sedentary assumptions, that are hard wired into our societies - we are habituated to sitting on chairs - are a major cause of all sorts of alleged "problems".

http://anglicanhistory.org/misc/freechu ... s1844.html

CHURCH PEWS,
THEIR ORIGIN AND LEGAL INCIDENTS,
WITH
SOME OBSERVATIONS
ON THE
PROPRIETY OF ABOLISHING THEM,
IN THREE CHAPTERS.

BY
JOHN COKE FOWLER, ESQ.
OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER AT LAW.


LONDON:
FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE:
& SOLD BY WILLIAM BEMROSE, DERBY.
1844.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Facts aren't "tropes", Metatron. And who is "handwaving" away the horrific mistake that was made? The point being made was that the mistakes in diagnostic criteria was due to subjective and social opinions on the matter and I simply corrected this historical inaccuracy.

And, all this time, I thought you were telling us how scientific that was. Subjectivity. Opinion. The hallmarks of science done well, eh?

...As a mod you should understand that such clear quotemining is against the rules. Re-read the paragraph again, I clearly state that the point being made by others is that it was determined subjectively and by social norms, and I corrected that (i.e. pointed out how it is wrong).

And if you think clinical psychology is a science, or attempts to be one, or that medicine as a whole could even be one in a perfect world, then you know less about this topic than I thought.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sampling methods and biases in methodology have come a great way since the 40s and 50s, yes. This shouldn't be surprising.

Really? That little claim will require a little more than your assertion that it is so.

It seems strange that you need educating on such a basic topic that you are claiming arrogance over, but the whole problem of the observer/experimenter effect in experiments wasn't determined until the 1950s, confirmation wasn't widely acknowledged until after the 1960s, and the idea that selection bias could affect scientific results wasn't addressed until the mid-1950s when we started came up with the concept of RCTs to counteract them. Parametric statistics as a whole didn't really formally come about until the 1940s.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
To be fair, they were studying easy topics. But so what, psychologists like Helmholtz, Fechner, Pavlov, etc, all discovered things which still hold true today.

Yeah. The easy stuff. You do amuse from time to time with your posts.

Of course it's the easy stuff. Looking at the flow of electricity and measuring it in controlled conditions is far easier than fields like medicine where you can't account for every confound and you have to do far more leg work in studying basic research to judge how it may apply to the general population and in what ways uncontrolled variables could affect your conclusions.

The fact that physicists don't even need to control for barely any possible confounds should tell you that it's an easier thing to study.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Are you serious? I can't believe this train wreck of a conspiracy theorists wet dream is still in the science section with shitty scientifically ignorant comments like that. Do you understand why there is a difference between an applied science field and an experimental science field? You realise that your comments apply to medicine as a whole right?

Yes. I do. Are you now going to tell us all about the whole field of medicine?

I'd rather just leave your anti-science beliefs to speak for themselves...

The_Metatron wrote:I've always found it a failing that in much of medicine, troubleshooting is done through elimination. That is, we don't often see the process by which the diagnostician will make this or that test, and show what a condition is, then treat it. Instead, we see an awful lot of diagnosing through experimenting on the person who is sick. Present symptoms X, Y, Z? Well, lets address those with drugs A, B, and C. If that doesn't work, we'll try something else. Far too often, drugs effect only the symptom, not the condition. Oh, to the person with the condition, the result is the same. Most of the time. Except when the selected drug doesn't have the expected result.

Ah, so you're going with the alternative medicine belief that "Western" medicine is "allopathic"? Well, such arguments have been debunked by skeptics and scientists many times in the past but I'd be interested if you could present any evidence for your beliefs.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:The reason is that medicine (including clinical psychology) involve value judgements, you can't scientifically demonstrate that someone is sick. You first need to define what criteria you include as "sick" and make judgements as to where to draw the line. For that you need things like committees.

Really? Microscopes don't work any more? Radiography? etc, etc... Most people can do better than that in constructing their arguments.

Most people can and that's why they avoid horrific non-sequiturs like yours here. Microscopes and x-rays don't demonstrate that someone is sick by themselves... are you serious? I can't tell if you're now pretending to be even more ignorant of the topic than you actually are or whether you simply think you're making a good point.

I'll help you out: in medicine, we have to make judgements as to what "sick" means. If we find that people who faint a lot, tend to lose eyesight or limbs, and perhaps die prematurely, often all have a similar condition of high blood sugar then we can label that as "diabetes". But we still need to determine where we want to put the cut-off point. There is no objective way to do this and so all we do is measure the average blood-sugar level and essentially say that anything significantly above that (at a determined point) is "diabetic".

If you measure their blood sugar level before doing that then all you have is a number. It's meaningless and tells you nothing. And obviously even after you have the number, it doesn't tell you that the person is diabetic. For that you need to make a judgement based on a variety of things, including self-report from the patient, to determine whether they actually are diabetic, whether their blood sugar level is indicative of a different health problem, or whether their blood sugar level is perfectly normal for that person.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

You haven't demonstrated any incompetence yet. But I feel that that's probably because you're out of your depth in this discussion (what with knowing nothing about science).

You can retract that bullshit about knowing nothing about science, and you can do it now. You want to say something about what I write, have at it. What I know, or don't know, is not the topic for discussion. Got that shit, Mr.Samsa?

No, the beliefs and abilities of people arguing within a thread, when relevant, absolutely are up for discussion. Remember when I reported Cali for calling someone "scientifically ignorant" and it was closed because it was deemed to be a relevant comment? Remember when I was accused of being mentally ill in a thread and it was closed because it was deemed to be a relevant comment? You mods have judged that comments about qualities of a person absolutely are fair game.

And, of course, everything I've said is completely true. What scientific education do you have? I'd be surprised if you had any. Instead all you have is some education in engineering and that obviously isn't a scientific field.

The_Metatron wrote:In fact, you demonstrated the incompetence farther up in this post to which I am replying. You remember: "...mistakes in diagnostic criteria was due to subjective and social opinions on the matter. Who made these mistakes? Remind us.

Cito, remember? And I corrected him by disagreeing with that statement. For all the backseat moderating you're doing here you'll do well to remember that misrepresentation is against the rules.

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Try what "kind of shit"?

And why bring up engineering? It's not a science (obviously).

Yeah. The kind of shit that made it possible for you to sit wherever on earth you are and annoy people over the internet. That kind of shit. Try building something like that based on "science" characterized be concepts like "several".

Oh I see - the problem is that you read a brief outline of the diagnostic criteria and now you think you've spotted an error. Well done. Now read the whole DSM, and the manuals on the diagnostic tools used to measure ADHD symptoms, and see that you've fucked up here.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

...What is this wall of gibberish even supposed to mean?

I bet you can figure it out if you would only focus your attention on it. Got a scientific test that discriminates selective inattention from ADHD in every case? No? Thought not.

You aren't making sense. Please, try harder to construct coherent sentences.

Cito di Pense wrote:Clinical psychologists develop their own measures of the several conditions they diagnose. Every so often, they bring out a new version of the DSM, to add and delete some entries. It's a living.

That's how medicine, and science in general, works. You change your position based on evidence.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:And why bring up engineering? It's not a science (obviously).

You were telling us what makes clinical psychology a science, besides reminding us that you've read up on the subject. In view of that, a science is any field that collects data. Therefore, engineering is science.

Clinical psychology isn't a science and nor does it pretend to be, I've made that clear. And no, the idea that science is any field that collects data is absurd. You are joking right? Go bend a spoon.

The_Metatron wrote:Taking the high ground here, Mr.Samsa, posting where you think I won't reply?:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Come on guys, now we have The_Metatron spewing anti-scientific crap in the thread. It needs to be placed where it belongs or you guys need to explain how it isn't pseudoscience.

Help, help! Someone isn't buying what I'm selling! It must be anti-scientific!

Pretty lame. Predictable, but lame.

What are you talking about? I've told you explicitly here and elsewhere that I find your anti-scientific position on various topics disturbing. I only posted it there because it was relevant to my point, that anti-science wibble is polluting the science thread.

And no, this obviously has nothing to do with "disagreement", it is about dismissing science when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You know what's stupid about your argument here? I don't even fully agree with the methods and classifications of aspects of ADHD, and I have regularly complained about the issues with the DSM and the concept of the DSM as a whole. There is no problem with 'disagreeing', the only problem is the grounds that you base it on.

I prefer scientific grounds where I understand the subject matter and use evidence as my basis. You are using personal beliefs and a complete ignorance of the field to make colossally stupid comments.

Clive Durdle wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:Last year I did a MOOC by University of Geneva about global health, and one of the modules was about sedentary lifestyles. I propose ADHD is a direct result of forcing children to sit in classrooms for years.

Impossible as you need to demonstrate that the behaviors occur in a number of places outside of school, and that they are consistent and persistent across time.

What is impossible? What do I have to demonstrate?

I am proposing that sedentary assumptions, that are hard wired into our societies - we are habituated to sitting on chairs - are a major cause of all sorts of alleged "problems".

You claimed that ADHD was caused by children having to sit in classrooms and I explained why it's impossible for that to be true.

Please explain again! I do not understand your argument!

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:And why bring up engineering? It's not a science (obviously).

You were telling us what makes clinical psychology a science, besides reminding us that you've read up on the subject. In view of that, a science is any field that collects data. Therefore, engineering is science.

Clinical psychology isn't a science and nor does it pretend to be, I've made that clear. And no, the idea that science is any field that collects data is absurd.

So I broke your irony meter, again. What else is new? Or you could simply be pretending not to understand my point in order to troll a position on the field of human psychology that I have presented for you. OK, I get it that your cosmology does not now admit clinical psychology as a science. There's always next year, mate. What you mostly insist is that some unspecified bits of the field of observing organisms to see what they do is scientific if they summarise activity statistically and note that biology is based on chemistry instead of 'the life force'. Organisms respond to stimuli! Hey, hey! We got science! They do it systematically, and we have the summary statistics to prove it! Plants grow when you water them and supply them with light, and die when you don't!

On that model, marketing research is scientific, whereas I would view it as playing the percentages, which is what farmers do with big fields of crop plants, resulting in price fluctuations in commodity markets, whereas antenna designers aim for reliability without depending on the climate. Compared with chemistry or materials science, where the word 'several' is not part of statistical analysis, no, I aver that simply playing the percentages is scientific in the way that counting cards at blackjack is scientific. If you're satisfied with that, go forth and multiply, but be prepared for spectacular failure, in the shape of Ted Bundy.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Clinical psychologists develop their own measures of the several conditions they diagnose. Every so often, they bring out a new version of the DSM, to add and delete some entries. It's a living.

That's how medicine, and science in general, works. You change your position based on evidence.

It's basically how jury trials work, Mr.Samsa, and there's a judge to rule what is and is not admissible as evidence. As you ponder what your role in all of this is, be sure to exercise some jurisprudence. Now think about how and why ADHD is 'diagnosed'.

And you were just telling us, perhaps for the third or fourth time, that clinical psychology is NOT a science. If that's the case, if I observe that clinical psychologists update their DSM, and you respond by telling me that science is about changing one's position based on the evidence, I'm supposed to take away the notion that clinical psychologists are trying not to be dogmatic. While that's a fine ambition, I think it's placing the cart before the horse to postulate that the field of psychology is scientific in order to conclude that ADHD is a real disorder.

Changing one's position based on the evidence is worthless as a criterion if one has such fuzzy criteria of what constitutes scientific evidence. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, Samsa, and that's what psychology is stuck with, until it stops collecting data for its clients based on those data which social fashion is lately demanding. In a hundred years, it will be something else, if the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement fails to achieve its goals.

So basically your point is: "aliens"?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10 ... 7684c18004

A Systematic Review of the Global Prevalence of Low Back Pain

I would go further, and assert that ADHD is part of a cluster of issues related to sedentary lifestyles, including various bowel diseases, because we sit on chairs instead of squatting. Sugar and similar foods are also contributing.

Maybe chairs are as serious a health issue as lead and tobacco.

http://besynchro.com/blogs/blog/1061268 ... -squatting

Sitting Is Killing You Slowly

You'll probably be surprised at how much evidence there is out there that sitting is terrible for our bodies, and not just for our lower backs. Studies have shown over and over that sitting long periods of the day (as we almost all do) has disastrous effects our cellular and metabolic health. Here's a quick list of how researchers have shown sitting affects the body: Almost immediately after sitting down, (1) metabolic activity and caloric consumption slow dramatically (70% less than even just walking). (2) Sitting several hours every day increases insulin resistance (leads to type-II diabetes) and (3) increases LDL (aka "bad cholesterol"). These effects in turn lead to lower energy levels, increased weight gain and even lower life expectancy and greater risk of colon and breast cancer.

Our Bodies Were Not Designed To Sit

The image below on the left shows proper spine curvature. The muscles around our spine are designed to support and work in relation to this natural curvature. With the spine in this alignment, the muscles of the low-back engage and relax naturally.

The image on the right illustrates how the curvature of our spine changes when we are sitting. The forward curvature of the lumbar section is gone. As a result, muscles are forced to engage to stabilize this un-natural curvature. This isn't necessarily a problem in itself, except that when we sit, we tend to sit for long periods of time. ...

Asta666 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:And, you are now asking me to chip in to fix the failings of psychiatry? Isn't all this wonderful science Samsa keeps trying to ram down our throats doing the job?

Yes it is, and yes, The_Metatron, I am. At least that'd be something useful for a change, you're not precisely discovering fire or inventing the wheel right now. Maybe a good starting point would be reading the book you attempt to criticize.

Happily, I have a nice private library, chock full of books so much higher on my reading list, that sorting out that crap isn't even on my list of things to do in my lifetime.

However, if Mr.Samsa's and your "science" is doing the job, you don't need me, do you?

Regardless, before you bother, I have no doubt there exists a near infinite set of disciplines which suffer incomplete knowledge, and of which you are also doing nothing to remedy.

As I write this, I'm idly wondering how this conversation would be going if, when you or I click on that "Submit" icon, our posts would be published some of the time. Of if, when you click on a hyperlink, you get "several" lines of a post. Oh, this behavior would be statistical. It could follow a pretty distribution curve of probability. And, it would be pretty fucking useless, wouldn't it? It amuses me to no end how intolerant of error and ambiguity people are about some fields of endeavor, while accepting hit or miss performance in others and calling it scientific.

Mr.Samsa wrote:...

The_Metatron wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:You haven't demonstrated any incompetence yet. But I feel that that's probably because you're out of your depth in this discussion (what with knowing nothing about science).

You can retract that bullshit about knowing nothing about science, and you can do it now. You want to say something about what I write, have at it. What I know, or don't know, is not the topic for discussion. Got that shit, Mr.Samsa?

No, the beliefs and abilities of people arguing within a thread, when relevant, absolutely are up for discussion. Remember when I reported Cali for calling someone "scientifically ignorant" and it was closed because it was deemed to be a relevant comment? Remember when I was accused of being mentally ill in a thread and it was closed because it was deemed to be a relevant comment? You mods have judged that comments about qualities of a person absolutely are fair game.

And, of course, everything I've said is completely true. What scientific education do you have? I'd be surprised if you had any. Instead all you have is some education in engineering and that obviously isn't a scientific field.

...

Now there are two things going on here. You continue to try to make this about my person, and you're injecting perceived moderation injustice as justification for your posting behavior.

Get this perfectly straight Mr.Samsa: the topic is about ADHD. It is not about my or anyone else's wallpaper. What you've done with this is obvious to the most casual observer. When faced with criticism of your "science" which you have not successfully answered, you have resorted to questioning the academic credentials and possessed knowledge of the one making that criticism. This is how science is done?

Do I remember when you reported...? No. I don't keep lists. I don't really care. Do I remember when you were accused of being mentally ill? No. I'm not about to waste my time looking for it. This has what, even tangentially, to do with ADHD?

the_5th_ape wrote:

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not a real disease, a leading neuroscientist has claimed

ADHD is no more than a collection of symptoms and should not be considered a "real disease", a leading American neuroscientist has claimed.

Dr Bruce Perry told The Observer the definition of the condition is so broad virtually anyone could claim to be experiencing at least some of the symptoms at any given time.

Doctors are too quick to prescribe "psychostimulant" drugs to children when evidence suggests there may not be any long-term benefits, he added.

Prescriptions for the drugs, such as Ritalin, have risen from 420,000 in 2007 to 657,000 in 2012 – an increase of 56 per cent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/child ... laims.html

Next up: Moon "not made of cheese", a leading American astronomer has claimed.

The_Metatron wrote:

Asta666 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:And, you are now asking me to chip in to fix the failings of psychiatry? Isn't all this wonderful science Samsa keeps trying to ram down our throats doing the job?

Yes it is, and yes, The_Metatron, I am. At least that'd be something useful for a change, you're not precisely discovering fire or inventing the wheel right now. Maybe a good starting point would be reading the book you attempt to criticize.

Happily, I have a nice private library, chock full of books so much higher on my reading list, that sorting out that crap isn't even on my list of things to do in my lifetime.

However, if Mr.Samsa's and your "science" is doing the job, you don't need me, do you?

Regardless, before you bother, I have no doubt there exists a near infinite set of disciplines which suffer incomplete knowledge, and of which you are also doing nothing to remedy.

As I write this, I'm idly wondering how this conversation would be going if, when you or I click on that "Submit" icon, our posts would be published some of the time. Of if, when you click on a hyperlink, you get "several" lines of a post. Oh, this behavior would be statistical. It could follow a pretty distribution curve of probability. And, it would be pretty fucking useless, wouldn't it? It amuses me to no end how intolerant of error and ambiguity people are about some fields of endeavor, while accepting hit or miss performance in others and calling it scientific.

Somehow this reminds me of when those Italian seismologists were convicted of manslaughter for failing to precisely predict a lethal earthquake. Is guess seismology is also just a pseudoscience?

The_Metatron wrote:Get this perfectly straight Mr.Samsa: the topic is about ADHD. It is not about my or anyone else's wallpaper. What you've done with this is obvious to the most casual observer. When faced with criticism of your "science" which you have not successfully answered, you have resorted to questioning the academic credentials and possessed knowledge of the one making that criticism. This is how science is done?

And here's another thing about how science is done: When somebody has some expertise in a purportedly-scientific field, one of the things we expect him to be able to do is to talk knowledgeably and critically about the unsolved problems in his area. This is particularly important for the so-called 'human sciences' where it's like driving on really bad road: You bounce along for some distance in a giant chuckhole or pothole, and occasionally you stumble onto a bit of tarmac. That's not the sort of treatment we are seeing here. I don't want folks with as little capacity for admitting what they don't know messing around with what's going on in people's heads, and calling it pseudoscience or anti-science when somebody questions their 'authority'. That's how to show you've grabbed the short end of the scientific stick.

Shrunk wrote:Somehow this reminds me of when those Italian seismologists were convicted of manslaughter for failing to precisely predict a lethal earthquake. Is guess seismology is also just a pseudoscience?

Did they promise to predict anything whilst displaying overweening self-confidence in that bit of seismology? Let's think about why the argument here is boiling down to the semantics of whether or not the human sciences are scientific. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. We have 5th Ape to blame for injecting metaphysics at the start of this thread. OK, then, let's just move on to the semantics of 'disease', which you were keen to pursue a few pages back. We can do the easy part first: If you die of organic causes more than one stdev less than your life expectancy, should we call it a disease that killed you? If you remain alive more than one stdev beyond your revised expectancy despite being a pack-a-day man, what should we call it? An un-disease? It's not like there are no predictive models, but they're not yet causal models, and so the statisticians hold the field. That's not the same as molecular statistical mechanics, where the equations are fundamentally probabilistic and the objects of study are molecules. No false advertising there.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help people, but 'help' doesn't consist entirely of what the people supposedly in need of help want.

The_Metatron wrote:
Now there are two things going on here. You continue to try to make this about my person, and you're injecting perceived moderation injustice as justification for your posting behavior.

You're talking nonsense. Your lack of scientific qualifications is directly relevant to this discussion because it is the cause of your pseudoscientific beliefs. It is not about your person, it is about your ability to speak meaningfully about what is being discussed.

And moderation decisions are the best way I can determine what is considered to be within and outside the rules. If you guys have decided in the past that it's okay to criticise someone for being scientifically ignorant then hey, who am I to disagree? If you guys have conclusively determined that it's okay to do so then I'm going to point it out in your case. Unless the rules don't apply when criticising mods? Is that what you're saying?

The_Metatron wrote:Get this perfectly straight Mr.Samsa: the topic is about ADHD. It is not about my or anyone else's wallpaper. What you've done with this is obvious to the most casual observer. When faced with criticism of your "science" which you have not successfully answered, you have resorted to questioning the academic credentials and possessed knowledge of the one making that criticism. This is how science is done?

You have presented precisely zero valid criticisms and I've rebutted every pathetic attempt of yours to comment on this issue. At no point have I "resorted to questioning the academic credentials" of the person making the criticisms, as I explained how you were wrong and then pointed out that your lack of scientific education is the likely cause of it.

The_Metatron wrote:Do I remember when you reported...? No. I don't keep lists. I don't really care. Do I remember when you were accused of being mentally ill? No. I'm not about to waste my time looking for it. This has what, even tangentially, to do with ADHD?

You can't complain about the topic being derailed after YOU derailed it with your backseat moderating! I pointed out that your lack of understanding of science is what leads you to accept your anti-scientific dogmatic beliefs, and you started harping on about how your feelings were hurt etc etc. Even now you're continuing to derail the thread to talk about your butthurt rather than attempt to address the flaws in your position that I pointed out.

If you want to talk about ADHD then great. Pick up a book on the topic and stop making ridiculously ignorant comments.

Shrunk wrote:
Somehow this reminds me of when those Italian seismologists were convicted of manslaughter for failing to precisely predict a lethal earthquake. Is guess seismology is also just a pseudoscience?

This is precisely the problem here. Why the fuck is this thread not in the Pseudoscience section yet?

Cito di Pense wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Get this perfectly straight Mr.Samsa: the topic is about ADHD. It is not about my or anyone else's wallpaper. What you've done with this is obvious to the most casual observer. When faced with criticism of your "science" which you have not successfully answered, you have resorted to questioning the academic credentials and possessed knowledge of the one making that criticism. This is how science is done?

And here's another thing about how science is done: When somebody has some expertise in a purportedly-scientific field, one of the things we expect him to be able to do is to talk knowledgeably and critically about the unsolved problems in his area.

Who has expertise in this field that has made criticisms? Not the guy in the OP and certainly not you or Metatron.

Cito di Pense wrote:This is particularly important for the so-called 'human sciences' where it's like driving on really bad road: You bounce along for some distance in a giant chuckhole or pothole, and occasionally you stumble onto a bit of tarmac. That's not the sort of treatment we are seeing here. I don't want folks with as little capacity for admitting what they don't know messing around with what's going on in people's heads, and calling it pseudoscience or anti-science when somebody questions their 'authority'. That's how to show you've grabbed the short end of the scientific stick.

Impressive amount of spoon bending there, Cito, but no evidence at all of your claims. Funny that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Somehow this reminds me of when those Italian seismologists were convicted of manslaughter for failing to precisely predict a lethal earthquake. Is guess seismology is also just a pseudoscience?

Did they promise to predict anything whilst displaying overweening self-confidence in that bit of seismology? Let's think about why the argument here is boiling down to the semantics of whether or not the human sciences are scientific. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. We have 5th Ape to blame for injecting metaphysics at the start of this thread. OK, then, let's just move on to the semantics of 'disease', which you were keen to pursue a few pages back. We can do the easy part first: If you die of organic causes more than one stdev less than your life expectancy, should we call it a disease that killed you? If you remain alive more than one stdev beyond your revised expectancy despite being a pack-a-day man, what should we call it? An un-disease? It's not like there are no predictive models, but they're not yet causal models, and so the statisticians hold the field. That's not the same as molecular statistical mechanics, where the equations are fundamentally probabilistic and the objects of study are molecules. No false advertising there.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help people, but 'help' doesn't consist entirely of what the people supposedly in need of help want.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:This is particularly important for the so-called 'human sciences' where it's like driving on really bad road: You bounce along for some distance in a giant chuckhole or pothole, and occasionally you stumble onto a bit of tarmac. That's not the sort of treatment we are seeing here. I don't want folks with as little capacity for admitting what they don't know messing around with what's going on in people's heads, and calling it pseudoscience or anti-science when somebody questions their 'authority'. That's how to show you've grabbed the short end of the scientific stick.

Impressive amount of spoon bending there, Cito, but no evidence at all of your claims. Funny that.

But wait! Great news for the human sciences!



For more:

http://www.tylervigen.com/

Oh wow, a completely meaningless and irrelevant graph. Thanks for the stellar insight there, Cito.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Oh wow, a completely meaningless and irrelevant graph. Thanks for the stellar insight there, Cito.

Have another look at your complaint in this thread:

Mr.Samsa wrote:And no, this obviously has nothing to do with "disagreement", it is about dismissing science when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You know what's stupid about your argument here? I don't even fully agree with the methods and classifications of aspects of ADHD, and I have regularly complained about the issues with the DSM and the concept of the DSM as a whole. There is no problem with 'disagreeing', the only problem is the grounds that you base it on.

You've left yourself some wiggle room to agree partially with the diagnosis of ADHD, but we have no clue as to why you think you're qualified to do so as you throw spitballs at anyone else's negative judgment of what you think of as 'science', when all you can do is 'agree partially' with its conclusions. Which part is scientific, Mr.Samsa?

So you suggest that somebody has no basis to dismiss some diagnostic criteria with which you only 'partially agree'? With which part of it do you not disagree? No specifics, Samsa? Just someone's 'grounds'? What grounds do you have? Out with it! Don't whine at me about 'meaningless and irrelevant'.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Oh wow, a completely meaningless and irrelevant graph. Thanks for the stellar insight there, Cito.

Have another look at your complaint in this thread:

Mr.Samsa wrote:And no, this obviously has nothing to do with "disagreement", it is about dismissing science when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You know what's stupid about your argument here? I don't even fully agree with the methods and classifications of aspects of ADHD, and I have regularly complained about the issues with the DSM and the concept of the DSM as a whole. There is no problem with 'disagreeing', the only problem is the grounds that you base it on.

You've left yourself some wiggle room to agree partially with the diagnosis of ADHD, but we have no clue as to why you think you're qualified to do so as you throw spitballs at anyone else's negative judgment of what you think of as 'science'.

So you suggest that somebody has no basis to dismiss some diagnostic criteria with which you only 'partially agree'? With which part of it do you not disagree? No specifics, Samsa? Don't whine at me about 'meaningless and irrelevant'.

I don't need to be "qualified" in anything to point out that the "criticisms" that people are presenting have no scientific basis. You don't present evidence, then you are engaging in pseudoscience.

Don't try to do the creationist shuffle by shifting the burden of proof on to others. Shit or get off the pot.

Yeah, that maks sense. Only those with whom you argue require qualifications. Handy for you, isn't it?

The_Metatron wrote:Yeah, that maks sense. Only those with whom you argue require qualifications. Handy for you, isn't it?

Ah more misrepresentation! Love it. No, I've never argued at any point that qualifications are required. Understanding the subject matter is what is required.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your guys derailing the topic. Given how fucked up this pseudoscientific nonsense is, derailing it can only lead to something more interesting.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Understanding the subject matter is what is required.

Oh? And how do you demonstrate that? Bending a spoon? Understanding is subjective, until you can test it, for example, by showing you know how to perform on the test, something that teachers figured out a long time ago. In the classroom the teacher reigns supreme, because that's who administers the tests. Around here, not so much, where people claim up and down they've presented the argument, leaving the audience to make the assessment, instead of trying to dictate the assessment to the audience. I though you knew about this kind of shit.

So make your argument to that audience, Mr.Samsa, and quit spitballing the people who disagree with you. All the audience can see at this point is the spitballing.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Understanding the subject matter is what is required.

Oh? And how do you demonstrate that? Bending a spoon? Understanding is subjective, until you can test it, for example, by showing you know how to perform on the test, something that teachers figured out a long time ago. In the classroom the teacher reigns supreme, because that's who administers the tests. Around here, not so much, where people claim up and down they've presented the argument, leaving the audience to make the assessment, instead of trying to dictate the assessment to the audience. I though you knew about this kind of shit.

So make your argument to that audience, Mr.Samsa, and quit spitballing the people who disagree with you. All the audience can see at this point is the spitballing.

So still no evidence for your claims, Cito? Bend the other spoon and stop wibbling.