Of late there has been obsession that things should be based on scientific facts which, on the surface, sounds like a good idea. Drug policy should be based on the science, global worming is a scientific fact, the medicines our doctors give us have been subject to rigorous scientific evaluation etc and we will all be sure that we are heading to a bright new future.

But there is a problem, there is, no such thing as scientific fact. Surprised? You should be because it can change the way we view the pronouncements made by scientists. http://brainatthedoor.blogspot.co.uk...ific-fact.html

Actually you were very patronizing about psychology being nothing other than someone's opinion based on their political leaning. Someone who thinks like that simply doesn't understand the rudiments of how science works.

If you trained as a nurse you know that your working with applied science which is not an exact science either.

I found that all so tiresome and patronising. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

But hey, using someone's blog as your "proof"? Inspired...

Edit: Found this in the comments section of that eight year old blog. Makes much more sense than the blog itself:

Quote:
Monkey Courage said...
A friend of mine pointed this out to me. Frankly I expect more from an Englishman.

You seem to work under the assumption that scientists don't already understand the principles behind the scientific method. You also miss a crucial step in the description of the method (though you allude to it). Observation is a step in the Method. Then an hypothesis is formed and tested. If, through repeated experiments, the hypothesis is confirmed it becomes a Theory. A Theory is provisional and can be overturned at a moments notice. However, for a theory to be overturned doesn't require a complete paradigm shift. Newtonian Physics is still valid at sublight speeds. Einsteinian Physics is still valid at macro scales. Those Theories were less overturned than they were refined. Newton was on to something. But his study required more delicate measurements to get the complete picture. The same goes for Evolution or Climate Change. Something is occurring. There are correlations. Those correlations must be isolated and tested for causation.

Of course there can be bias. That is why we have peer review. We hope it keeps the scientists honest. And it does.

What amazes me is that the term "fact" is used in response to charges that so called skeptics make against the term "theory." A theory is a provisional fact. But pundits have purposefully obfuscated the meaning of theory as to be practically useless against a credulous layperson. And now that "fact" is being used to solidify what knowledge science have painstakingly garnered along comes you armchair philosophers explaining to the credulous once again that there are no scientific facts and that all knowledge is provisional. And you've conveniently withheld an explanation of the term "theory."

Well done, sir. You've uncovered a non-mystery and further confused the debate.

Unquote.

You of all people found it patronizing!!
Try looking it up yourself, if of course you can be bothered which I doubt you can.

I think you have just proved my point about interpretation as I did not say psychology was nothing more than someone’s opinion based on their political leaning. I said that psychological data, not being an exact science, was more influenced by confirmation bias. Not exactly the same.

No, I can't be bothered. I have more interesting stuff to do than trawl round Google trying to find something that proves or disproves what you're saying. I already know it's rubbish... and you're not a scientist any more than I am.

I stopped reading at the highlighted part.

So you again only come into a thread to mock without a reasoned counter argument, what point is there being in a debate thread when you refuse to engage?

But you were willing to come on here and make a mocking comment at something I wrote and you did so without understanding what it was you were mocking. :hehe:

I'm not playing your game Livia, its predictable and its boring.

And yet here you are replying to me. Again.

That doesn't surprise me.

Thanks for recycling my joke though, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

I found the comments ridiculous, as though someone had stumbled across some random's blog on a Google search and taken their word as gospel. And then posted that blog as evidence.

I have a family full of scientists, and what's more I have a perfect right to mock.... it's not like you're a stranger to it.

I'm not a stranger to it no, Iv'e come to expect you to mock and anticipate it in every thread. You never fail to disappoint there.

What is wrong with a blog?... It's just an opinion, another view to bounce ideas off, SD is full of random you tube vlogs denouncing our 'PC' culture on here that many seize on as gospel or hard evidence of some social ill...
Where's your mockery then?

It wasn't imitation it was me holding a mirror to make you aware of your double standard as per.

This kind of highlights something very interesting actually, that people who consider themselves to be quite conservative are very rigid in their thinking...until they agree with what is being said.
The blog v vlog thing being a prime example, you are loath to see the merit in the blog as it doesn't chime with you, yet the conservative leaning vlogs are given careful consideration.
Why would one be given greater credence than the other?

THe left-wing on here are quick to try to undermine evidence produced by others as an opinion piece. Different when they do it though. They can’t have it both ways.

So a blog is opinion and a vlog is fact, even if it's just some ranty bloke?

I rest my case.