Science Without a Soul

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm guessing you don't know what intelligence is, since you are claiming it is a measurable quality. That has always been in dispute.

New research in cognitive neuroscience is revealing the fact that intelligence is not a broadly measurable quality. Intelligence is typically subject matter dependant and more synonymous with aquired knowledge than an innate ability to manufacture facts.

According to you it's a picture on a piece of paper.

'nuff said.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm guessing you don't know what intelligence is, since you are claiming it is a measurable quality. That has always been in dispute.

New research in cognitive neuroscience is revealing the fact that intelligence is not a broadly measurable quality. Intelligence is typically subject matter dependant and more synonymous with aquired knowledge than an innate ability to manufacture facts.

What cognitive neuroscience is doing is revealing their own model of what intelligence is.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's good to keep in mind that for example, the science people who reseach "dis-ease" and who develop chemical treatments have one agenda. That agenda is very different than the pharmaceutical marketing teams who have a business approach in marketing medications for the making of billions of dollars. Mental health professionals do not have a vested interest in healing and curing measures (especially ones the patient can do independently), but rather in measures that will keep a clientele coming back for "treatment". Somewhere along the lines, words like "Possible genetic predisposition" become "These disorders are genetic and require chemical treatment for life".

Unfortunately, the mental health professionals may slant information also in order to "encourage" ( /coerce) patients to take such meds, as they have a limited arsenal of tools.

This is speculation. I could just as easily make the claim that all of your posts are motivated by your secret agenda to subvert science and perpetuate your paradigmatic beliefs in spiritual healing so you can become a cult master, enslave the people and lead them all to their death the next time hailey's comet passes through our orbit.

It's likely not true, but it's a claim similar to yours.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What cognitive neuroscience is doing is revealing their own model of what intelligence is.

A model that is objectively validated. Supported by science and fact. Not just wild speculation.

angelica

All any of us are doing is speculating.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

All any of us are doing is speculating.

I'm not speculating. I'm providing the results of research by publically funded research institutions. I've provided insight into the current state of psychiatry.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

A model that is objectively validated. Supported by science and fact. Not just wild speculation.

Gue's model is objectively validated too. For example, I tend to agree with him on his views on intelligence, as do many others. I am viewing gue objectively.

Now if you're talking about the use of scientific instruments, well, that's another kind of model. Some give that a "higher" rank; others a "lower" one.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not speculating. I'm providing the results of research by publically funded research institutions. I've provided insight into the current state of psychiatry.

You are speculating that "your" results trump other sets of results and other views and other methodologies.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

You are speculating that "your" results trump other sets of results and other views and other methodologies.

Or maybe he's just one of those "authority-is-truth" clowns.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Gue's model is objectively validated too. For example, I tend to agree with him on his views on intelligence, as do many others. I am viewing gue objectively.

Now if you're talking about the use of scientific instruments, well, that's another kind of model. Some give that a "higher" rank; others a "lower" one.

This goes back to your theme of subverting science to support your agenda. Only when your ideology is in discontinuity with the facts, otherwise you stand firmly behind them. This is a perverted philosophical trick for "proving" your point. The cost of which is that you are claiming "proof" to be impossible and thus all theories and opinions have equal validity, bordering on Pyrrhonism. Except Pyrrhonists like OutOfBreath don't assent to any positive claims as you do, because the logical end of such defeatism is that no claim can be validated or supported without being hypocritical.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Or maybe he's just one of those "authority-is-truth" clowns.

Not that I don't think he has the potential to be better.



hehee.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

This goes back to your theme of subverting science to support your agenda. Only when your ideology is in discontinuity with the facts, otherwise you stand firmly behind them. This is a perverted philosophical trick for "proving" your point. The cost of which is that you are claiming "proof" to be impossible and thus all theories and opinions have equal validity, bordering on Pyrrhonism. Except Pyrrhonists like OutOfBreath don't assent to any positive claims as you do, because the logical end of such defeatism is that no claim can be validated or supported without being hypocritical.

She's just enjoying the debate.

And you're not.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You are speculating that "your" results trump other sets of results and other views and other methodologies.

My results are from the largest most in-depth research ever performed by a publicly funded institution in the country in question. These other results are unfounded claims, no citations provided, nothing, just Gue's word and some 2-bit shockumentary film. Of course the results I provided, which are not "My" results, but the results of the U.S. government trump wild speculation and manufactured fiction.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

My results are from the largest most in-depth research ever performed by a publicly funded institution in the country in question. These other results are unfounded claims, no citations provided, nothing, just Gue's word and some 2-bit shockumentary film. Of course the results I provided, which are not "My" results, but the results of the U.S. government trump wild speculation and manufactured fiction.

Bigger is better!

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

She's just enjoying the debate.

And you're not.

You don't even know what I said Gue. You likely didn't even try to comprehend it. You are an antogonist. I've read enough of your posts to know that you get off on antagonizing people, you never provide any citations for your claims and I doubt you believe them yourself.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

You don't even know what I said Gue. You likely didn't even try to comprehend it. You are an antogonist. I've read enough of your posts to know that you get off on antagonizing people, you never provide any citations for your claims and I doubt you believe them yourself.

I'm not here in the name of science.

Try as you might, you aren't either.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

My results are from the largest most in-depth research ever performed by a publicly funded institution in the country in question. These other results are unfounded claims, no citations provided, nothing, just Gue's word and some 2-bit shockumentary film. Of course the results I provided, which are not "My" results, but the results of the U.S. government trump wild speculation and manufactured fiction.

right.....the more men in suits back you up mean you MUST be right. Did you know that's a marketing/psychological ploy? To convince people you have powerful or vast groups supporting your "product", "service" etc?

Whether you know it's a trick or not, I know....

In the end, opinions remain opinions.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

I'm not here in the name of science.

Try as you might, you aren't either.

I understand why you are taking the position you are though. Your behavior is characteristic of someone with mental health issues. You carry on conversations with yourself, make totally irrelevant, yet provocative statements and you get a kick out of antagonizing people into a useless arguement. Sounds like you need some Fluoxetine bud.

angelica

Looks like you're enjoying the debate, too, gue.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I understand why you are taking the position you are though. Your behavior is characteristic of someone with mental health issues. You carry on conversations with yourself, make totally irrelevant, yet provocative statements and you get a kick out of antagonizing people into a useless arguement. Sounds like you need some Fluoxetine bud.

ah...the "revert to the methods epitomized in the videos" ploy, huh? Revert to the ole social-psycho control, eh??

*smiles and nods*