Cargo Cult
 

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

Doan

Cargo Cult
 

Monkey boys can't seem to think of anything new. R R R R R

Or how well the old posts apply to the fantasy that spanking "works."

Dance, monkeyboy. Dance.

The Question, The Lies & The Liars Cargo Cult
 

The Question: Is there any study that shows the non-cp alternatives are
better then spanking under the same statistical analysis?

The Lies: I've posted them on this newsgroups "numerous times". I've
found them.

The Liars: LaVonne, Kane0.

Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-)

Doan


On 9 Nov 2005 wrote:

Monkey boys can't seem to think of anything new. R R R R R

Or how well the old posts apply to the fantasy that spanking "works."

Dance, monkeyboy. Dance.

Cargo Cult
 

Science is seldom a neutral. It is always a product of its time and
frequently comes with an agenda. Where researchers frequently get into
trouble is in trying to pass off deductive logic as inductive
reasoning. That is a primary problem with no-spank research.



Doan wrote:
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

Doan

Cargo Cult
 

Opinions wrote:
Science is seldom a neutral.

You are communicating on a product of science. Care to start sending in
smoke signals?

It is always a product of its time and
frequently comes with an agenda.

Geez, I should hope to shout.

Where researchers frequently get into
trouble is in trying to pass off deductive logic as inductive
reasoning.

Precisely the problem with those such as Lazerlare et al.

That is a primary problem with no-spank research.

Actually it's not. And you've got it entirely backwards, as should be
expected from a non-scientist with a deeply troubled mind.

If you wanted to make your argument, you'd claim that they are trying
to pass of inductive reasoning (the weaker method) as deductive logic
(the stronger method of the two).

You asleep are yah?

You babble. And in doing so your mind runs away with you as it just
did, and your own thinking errors trip you up.

The problem with pro-spanking research is that it has never shown any
long term positive results that are duplicatable. Since it's all anti
anti-spanking focused instead of working on proving that spanking
works.

It doesn't, and you have an embarassment of riches in proof against any
such claim by simply looking at the population of criminals,
scoundrels, and those afflicted with severe breaks with reality, as you
seem to be. The world itself, with the pain and aguish of so many is
clear proof that harsh child rearing does not work. Anthropologists
have been pointing this out for years. It simply creates monsters that
perpetuate it, and sadly, find all to easy justification and defense
for it as "normal," "because we all have done it." And "look at me, I
turned out okay," more severe thinking errors.

You will find a large body of people both spanked and unspanked
defending non-spanking. You will find almost no one but the spanked
defending spanking.

Telling correlation, that.

Do you like my deductive logic, or would you prefer my inductive
reasoning?

I've noticed something else that you won't like. The children of
non-spankers that grow up and seek mates drop them if they insist that
spanking is okay when they have children. It narrows the field for
finding a mate, but it surly improves the stock of humankind.

Pretty soon you won't able to get laid at all....R R R R R R....

0:-