If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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:- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Let me see now. | [email protected] | Spanking | 7 | July 22nd 05 02:52 PM |
Religion vs. Cult | Masked Avenger | Solutions | 0 | April 18th 05 02:06 PM |
No scientific basis. | Kane | Spanking | 5 | March 15th 04 03:44 AM |
cargo cult mentality of anti-spanking zealotS | Doan | Spanking | 0 | March 4th 04 05:04 PM |
cargo cult science | Doan | Spanking | 0 | November 16th 03 01:15 AM |