So I was looking at my university's psychology course materials today and I realised that null hypothesis testing is abused to the point of meaninglessness by social scientists and that's one of the reasons why psychologists aren't real scientists.
PROVE ME WRONG
Notice how only americans and scientologists have such idiotic views.
OMG RACISMS
>55
>Notice how only americans and scientologists have such idiotic views.
>56
>OMG RACISMS
It's not racist when it's a FACT. Three Words:
George Wanker Bush
>>49
Wow that sounds dumb, and coming from someone supposedly in psychology... I don't know what to think of you.
So you quit doing something because others that are unable to do it correctly also do it. Then you justified this nonsense with "this is just me". If you really were a psychology major, you'd know that who we are changes everyday with everything. You could say that everything surrounding us and everything we conceive, recall, compute, et cetera is affecting us. (Is this a false dichotomy or not? in the abstract sense of the words it seems not)
If it were really you, you should had attempted to change what prevents you from doing your job, which doesn't necessarily have to do anything with your job, it's just that via your job it was revealed. Instead of this, you chose to change a job/major.
>>57
so which one are you? a scientologist?
>>58
I think what bob was getting at is that psychology in the last 100 years or so has lost its value due to various sub fields of the study of the human brain being the more prominent yet being unable to really accomplish anything.
He left the field (in his words) because what we consider psychology today is a course which was developed by someone who likely squeeked through their doctorates program, decided major psychology texts were useless and dumbed it down, branched it out, and made the entire thing retarded to the point of only learning conditions and what chemicals affect them.
However...
>If it were really you, you should had attempted to change what prevents you from doing your job, which doesn't necessarily have to do anything with your job, it's just that via your job it was revealed. Instead of this, you chose to change a job/major.
I feel you are flawed in telling this person what he should do with his views. He felt that the entire coursework and topics to focus upon missed most of the point, not so much that people with less intelligence than is imaginable was going through, but that they had utterly slaughtered what is a majr and much needed field of science. In the interest of challenging himself, he chose something more suited to his talents and likely to expand his skill range well beyond what psych could have offered him.
Regarding imaginary numbers, I suggest you read some of Karl Gauss' papers, specifically his proof on the fundamental theorem of algebra. If you read that and understand what he's saying, read some papers from his student and protege, Bernhard Riemann, including the need for real geometric and mathematical physics equivalents for work in mathematics.
Some things that need to be properly examined before you can undertake a dialectic on this topic, are studying and understanding a few things:
1.) Epistomology - What is knowledge, what is knowing, how do we know things, how do we know what we know, etc. Read Plato to get a thorough grounding in this, specifically 'Theatetus' and 'The Sophist'.
2.) Scientific Method, rules and procedures to be followed when conducting 'scientific studies,' the differences between hypothesis & theory are, what a null hypothesis is, statistical inference & significance and how they are misused.
continued:
There are some sub-fields, such neuropsychology and others that focus their studies on things so specific that they aren't truthfully studying behavior or mental processes anymore, but biochemistry and physiology for the most part, and making inferences on how these biochemical and physiological processes influence mental processes and behavior of individuals. I.E., they aren't talking about 'psychology' anymore, for the most part.
Null Hypothesis is another point: Hypothetical assertions are assumed to be false, unless there is sufficient experimental data to support the assertions. If that condition is satisfied, then further testing and refinement can ensue. Do you make hypothesis honestly asking questions about human behavior that can be tested, including a prediction of human behavior, and a prediction/ancillary addressing the possibility the proposed hypothesis is false? And if you do that, instead posing testable hypothesis instead of making culturally biased assumptions of how human behavior is, do you actually honor the null hypothesis?
In clinical practice/therapies, this is one of the most common offenses. Treatment results and studies often shows a therapy to either be ineffective or otherwise produce results other than is expected (as per a hypothesis). Instead of re-hypothesizing, or starting new studies for alternate therapies for an 'abnormal condition', many if not most therapists ignore the results and treat their patients however they want. This isn't anything remotely related to science. Such deplorable, baseless practices as labotomies have been practiced in the past due to laxness of experimental setup, and refusal to honor null hypotheses. This amounts to proposing models of behavior and mental process, and treatments, and the basis of abnormal behavior itself, off of belief instead of verification.
Finally:
Instead of scientific research being done, to create the basis of clinical therapy, the converse has most frequently been done, "experts" create new therapies in their practices, mental health facilities, et al, based upon their own assumptions and biases and then write articles on the matter to then be tested by others in the sub-fields of psychology. Anyone else see a logical falacy in this? It's easy to "confirm" such fait accompli studies when they are introduced to the community as valid, if not assumed true... and the same procedures and set of environmental conditions used to test said therapies are followed and produce similar or the same results. The study being done after the fact to "verify" the clinical practice could be called a scientific study, but the basis of the study is anything but. Many fields of psychology can legitimately claim to conduct and base their practices on scientific studies, but that says nothing on the basis of these scientific studies. Scientific studies alone do not constitute a science.
If there aren't clear core theories that form the basis of the field and sub-disciplines, scientific studies aren't being properly conducted and null hypothesis being honored, it then is impossible for the field itself to change and evolve based upon future research.
That is, even if you did scientifically sound research, it's potential to change the field overall is low to nil, since all the prior issues and standards of practice by those in the field must first be addressed, and revolutionized. It's important to note that the scientific studies must be based off of a sound scientific inquiry and method to start with. Otherwise, you're stuck using inductive logic, which does not necessarily require each prior statement or assertion to prove successive statements true. That is, you don't have to procedurally prove each assertion true to make further assertions based on prior assertions. Karl Popper proposed that falsifiability is a solution to problems of inductive logic.
This reminds me of Thomas Kunt. So, Psychology is a multiparadigmatic science, it has as many approaches as people who study it.
Btw, science is not about getting to the truth of the truth (leave that to the mathematics). That's imposible! Science studys the world, the reality, the present, but all this stuffs are eventually changing, they are not sTatic. So, what may be true now, it may not be true tomorrow.
What do you believe is the coolest invention of the decade
simple enough, Ill post mine after i get some replies
Yes, the military operates exactly as it did in War Games. When will they realize this and beef up the security?
Actually, after having met a navy launch officer, I learned that the US Navy, at least, has REDUCED security. You no longer even need to enter a code to launch. You just select a missile on your console and pull a little trigger and it starts the automated launch sequence. No checks at all, no security.
Two experienced launch officers are now sitting in brig because they were so shocked and alarmed by this new design that they decided to defy their orders and change their system back to the old, secure launch method.
Michio Kaku
hrm, since 1998... most of the things I think that are cool were (in some form or other) around then:
broadband and wireless internet, multiplayer gaming, LEDs, TFTs, SSDs.
Actually bad: x86 has become the only platform for consumers.
Most things I can think of are pieces of code like Freenet, Bittorrent or porn video sites, but in the end I say:
USB flash drives.
They work by quantum tunneling!
How cool is that?!
First quantum computer, 2007.
Even though it was thought of a long time ago.
the mp3 player?
>>2,6,7,13,14,21,22
which decade are we talking about here?
Digital SLR camera.
> First quantum computer, 2007.
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r121205b
I assume that we all know about Star Trek and their warp capabilities. Now this question has several parts. First, how is it possible to "warp" the space around you (ship, star craft, etc)? Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this method of travel just compressing space around your self in a way that provides directional momentum?
Second, is there any sort of degrees for warping? IE, warp 1 warp 2 etc, or is this something that sci-fi uses?
Third, is it possible to warp within an atmosphere or on a planets surface while keeping your surroundings intact?
Fourth, is warping reserved for large objects, such as a ship, or can it also be applied to an individual with the same results? IE power armor or something like that.
Fifth, what would happen to mass as it comes close to the object in a state of warp? does it bend around with the rest of space or could it pass though and affect the mass?
Sorry for all the questions, but any answers would help out greatly.
It's currently not possible and may never be possible.
Most everything is speculation. Feel free to just make something up for whatever reason you need answers.
'Warp Drive' only exists in science fantasy because without it epic space wars would be pretty boring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive#Real-world_possibility
I feel I must warn you not to follow this link, it's generally preferable to be caught viewing the worst kind of porn than to be caught reading this:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Warp_drive
I was having a thought experiment the other day, and thought that it was interesting enough to share - and also ask you folks your opinions on the matter, and the ramifications it has on life.
Assumptions:
Therefore:
At the moment of the universe's creation, everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen [Including this discussion] was inevitable and destined to occur, and free will is an illusion.
Aside:
There's a more interesting question hidden there, is there true randomness?
If there's true randomness, then clearly we can't predict the future via the method you described, by taking everything into account and computing according to the laws of nature the next step.
Notice this does not answer whether we have free will or not. It is possible that which is truly random is not related to the human brain. Our thoughts could be the result of predictable chemical reactions. Randomness could affect our thoughts, but the outcome would still be predictable. That would mean brain-simulating AI is possible.
Leaving humans aside, you're talking about absolute knowledge. You assume there's someone with all the necessary knowledge (which amounts to infinite) to predict the future from knowledge of the present, and then you draw conclusions from that. You consider whether such entity exists or not, but you don't consider whether such entity could exist.
all three of your assumptions might be (and probably are) wrong in the real world...
hmm, I didn't really think I was trying to assume anything about absolute knowledge, only that if all information was known, could an outcome be predicted. Whether there would be some machine or entity capable of calculating it is irrelevant.
I suppose I should have phrased it, does every reaction in the universe follow some natural law (even though we may not understand it yet)? If so, does it then follow that the Human Brain is just another reaction that could itself be predicted?
If and when the brain-predictitron is invented, you'll know the answer is, Yes.
If and when it is not invented, you'll know the answer is, Maybe.
Well it depends on if you believe that the universe is infinite..
If so then everything that can happen is happening. Has already happened, and will continue to happen forever. Infinite universes mean that every possible outcome of any-thing is has and will happen at the same time and will continually happen somewhere forever.
There is no physical way for a human to grasp this concept, seeing as we have never sent a human beyond the moon..
And truly know nothing about the universe
>>4
The general consensus... maybe I shouldn't use that world... the strong majority opinion among quantum physicists is that even if we know ALL information in the universe, the random quantum behavior of every particle interaction would still be, purely, random. So the current idea in physics is that no outcome in nature can be specifically predicted; only a probability distribution of the outcome can be predicted.
But randomness isn't free will either. But if quantum interactions weren't actually random but somehow "free" in some sort of preternatural sense, there's no way for science to detect it.
But the nature of the interaction between mind and brain is such a giant mystery, it makes no sense to make your first assumption either. The arguments against free will seem as absurd to me as the arguments against an objective reality. Free will is one of the few things in existence that we can truly directly and intimately experience and reflect on. If anything deserves to be an axiom or assumption, I think it should be the existence of free will, along with the existence of the self and of external reality.
I have been contemplating the universe..
I have come to a fork in the road for many of my thoughts..
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite
Each choice dictating the direction of further contemplation on any given thought
For example: Finite: If the universe started out from an impossibly hot, impossibly tiny singularity, (such as in the Big Bang Theory), then.. What did that singularity exist in? what was around it, what co-existed with that singularity? how was it considered hot if nothing around it existed with any varying temperature with which to compare?
These examples represent one blade of grass in the entire milky way, as far as how many questions there are with the two-headed fork
But if the Universe is infinite, these questions don't exist and an equally massive list of new ones pop up..
How about both? Finite and Infinite?
If the universe started from a single point then it would have to have a boundry as well as a center.
The idea that it has a boundary is correct, but in the may mass bends space time leads to the conclusion that it may of may or may not be bent into a sphere of sphere like structure, which would mean that through natural propulsion an object would travel in the straightest possible line, in this case around ion a circle, but I guess the only way we'll ever know if weather the universe itself is expanding at or greater than escape velocity.
i remember i watched something about string theories and somehow they began to explain that the universe is just a cosmic bubble on vast dimensional curtain and that these bubbles are constantly forming and popping.
so yes, the universe is finite
My opinion, it is finite, yet ever growing. It can be measured, only to be measured again at a bigger distance.
Here's one to test your noggins...
If the Uniferse is finite, but expanding at the speed of light - there's no way you could EVER perceive the boundary - making it infinite by default.
My high school science teacher used to say something like "the universe is finite, but unlimited". He explained it in a way that made sense but I can't remenber well...
"An intriguing question is whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an important open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology; if one travelled in a straight line through the universe perhaps one would eventually revisit one's starting point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Well it depends on if you believe that predestination exists..
If so then everything that can happen is happening. Has already happened, and will continue to happen forever. Predestination means that every possible outcome of any-thing is has and will happen at the same time and will continually happen somewhere forever.
>>10
Yes, the analogy of the surface of the earth is exactly correct -- The surface of the earth is a finite 2-dimensional surface, but unbounded. General Relativity requires that the universe must have those same characteristics -- and some of the early physicists (there are papers online from them, google "relativity 3-sphere") proved that any qualifying geometry of the universe must necessarily be the "3-sphere". This is like the surface of a sphere, except instead of a sphere in 3 dimensions, you have a sphere in 4 dimensions. The surface of that sphere is 3-dimensional. It has the same properties of the 2-sphere that it is unbounded and finite. It also has some other interesting properties, including that the center of this sphere is entirely arbitrary. Every point can equally be considered the center.
Just like with the familiar 2-sphere, a straight line in any direction will eventually return to its origin, but we will never be able to look out in space with a telescope and see the earth, because the 3-sphere of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. As a result, the visible universe is only a small portion of the universe that we will never be able to see beyond. In GR, it can be described exactly like a black hole. A black hole can be described as a region where space itself is getting pulled into the singularity faster than the speed of light, so no information can ever reach us from that region. The area outside the visible universe is mathematically the same -- anything that far out, and that part of space is moving away from our part of space faster than the speed of light.
I can walk to the store.. It may take 3 minutes.
I can run to the store.. It may take 1.14 minutes..
Why cant this process continue for ever?
Why, when you reach the speed of light, does time suddenly "fall apart" so to say.. Does that mean time and light are directly connected?
If there was no light in the Univers, and some object approached ≈ 186,282.397 MPH.......... what then?
Why can't an object simply go faster, without "Bending space-time", perhaps 187,000 mph?
Well, seeing that the laws of our universe -don't- allow for FTL, we probably need to seek -other- methods.
Like:
But currently, that's all sci-fi.
>>17
the laws of our universe as we currently understand them do allow things to move faster than c, they just don't allow anything to accelerate/decelerate through c.
So basicallg >>18 , you are saying that something has to reach a constant speed before it could travel faster than light but it will never be allowed?
I read something on relativity recently basing more on einsteins concept of the person in motion aging far less than the one stagnant.
Does this tie into lightspeed at all or not?
Also, why toss a sage on there? You trying to bury the thread when people are asking valid questions and discussing stuff?
> So basicallg >>18 , you are saying that something has to reach a constant speed before it could travel faster than light but it will never be allowed?
"One curious effect is that, unlike ordinary particles, the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases. (For ordinary bradyonic matter, E increases with increasing velocity, becoming arbitrarily large as v approaches c, the speed of light.) Therefore, just as bradyons are forbidden to break the light-speed barrier, so too are tachyons forbidden from slowing down to below c, since to reach the barrier from either above or below requires infinite energy."
> Also, why toss a sage on there?
why are you bumping the top thread? do you have some sort of thread-bumping fetish or something?
These are universal constants. If we introduce a logic system from which physics laws derive, and if we introduce the concept of 'speed' in that system, we automatically put objects in order.
For example, we're able to ask "Which is the fastest object?" and "Which could be the fastest object?". We can also ask "which is the slowest object" et cetera.
It's possible to conceive different physics with different constants, or objects travelling faster than the light. In our universe, it's just how it is. Travelling faster than the light is not conceivable because it is not allowed by our nature. Likewise it's impossible to be indestructible, for instance.
On this show they were able to slow the speed of light down to a few miles per hour by sending it through some super cooled substance at a few degrees Kelvin. So it would be possible to go faster than that particular light.
>>22
you're capable of moving "through some super cooled substance at a few degrees Kelvin"?
because that's what you'd have to do to move faster than that particular light.
a bullet would be able to go faster than that light if you shot it through the super cooled substance.
>I can run to the store.. It may take 1.14 minutes.. Why cant this process continue for ever?
It can. The only limit on the time it must take you to reach the store (as measured by your own watch), is that it must take longer than 0. By your own experience, you can arrive at the store faster than c, however, for someone staying at home watching you run to the store, they will never witness you traveling any faster than c. So while your trip to the store may have taken you 0.00001 seconds, to them it took you a full 0.01 seconds. This happens because you will be traveling through time more quickly than them. So any time you talk about an object's speed you have to ask, "as measured by whom?" Both distances and durations of time are different depending on whom you are asking.
All this follows from a single assumption -- that no matter how fast you are traveling, the basic laws of the universe should still work the same way in any experiment you do inside your space ship. In other words, no one frame of reference can be said to be more "at rest" than another. And some of the most tried and true laws of nature are Maxwell's Equations, which describe how electric and magnetic fields propagate. From these equations, it is easily shown that there are electromagnetic waves, and they must travel at c. That is what sets up the conundrum. The same waves, as measured by anyone, in any frame reference, have to be observed as traveling at c. It was discovered around the same time that those waves can equally be considered a particle (a photon). So if A is traveling away from B at 0.9c, and a photon is passing B at 1.0c, how fast is that photon traveling away from A? Common sense says 0.9 + 1.0 = 1.9, but the logic of relativity insists that 0.9 + 1.0 = 1.0. So special relativity sets out the mathematical framework whereby that can be, by relative speeds essentially change the way time and distances present themselves to each perspective.
you do not need to suffer from baldness
I do not want to die head sick
WIGS! Wigs FOR ALL!
Next topic, please?
This is the most practical topic on this board.
What's the use in going faster than the speed of light if your wig is going to be blown off? Sexually-compatible alien babes will not be impressed by your baldness.
lex luthor couldn't cure his baldness, and he's an evil genius!
>>10
HEY.
Alien babes do not have the fashion sensibilities of the modern female. The potential she would certainly go for my future bald self if I have right phasers and FTL capable ride.
Kirk was always getting some, Picard never got ANY! Coincidence? I think not!
And even in the 24th century they haven't cured the baldness.
Pfft... No way. Although a sweet ride and powerful weapons are certainly sexy, any alien babes that are attracted to your future bald self over another gun-toting spaceship captain with a full head of luxurious hair would most certainly be reptilian or... soy-based, not sexually compatible at all.
less thinking = less balding
alas
I was watching this video of an informal explanation/interprentation of string theory, and while it is not as sophisticated or accurate as a formal description of it, but it is appealing to those who want to get an idea about what things are discussed.
I understood both all dimensions and the term metaphor of folding a dimension, with the folded newspaper which made one appear from one point to another in the dimension below. To say that all this actually exists is an assumption, and nothing we can prove for a fact. It might not be the answer to the question "What is there?", however it is certainly the answer to another question, "What could be there?", what is possible to imagine that it could be there. In short, it describes our mental imaginative hard limit. (the soft limit is much lower)
My question is, does it answer "What could be there?", like I presupposed, or "What could be imagined by humans?"?
In other words, does human imagination have barriers? Is there something that can't be imagined by humans? If there is, is it understood by other beings, possible or not, possible in the human mental realm or not? If not, what teriffying feeling it is to realize we were in a cage all along! The bounds of our imagination.
> In other words, does human imagination have barriers? Is there something that can't be imagined by humans?
What's the largest quantity you can picture in your mind?
Can you imagine a thousand bowling pins, or will you just think of a pile of them?
How about one-hundred doves? Can you think of just twenty-five coins, or will you think of five sets of five coins?
At what point does a group of objects become just an abstract number?
I believe starting with basic ideas like this is the best way to understand your/our mental limits.
> If there is, is it understood by other beings, possible or not, possible in the human mental realm or not?
Science fiction has explored this idea (since fiction is all we have). A good example are the extra-dimensional beings from Slaughterhouse Five that abduct the main (human) character at some point in his life and put him in a Zoo. They try to explain the human's perception of reality to Zoo visitors as being stuck on a rail, always going forward, with blinders on his eyes and his head is restrained so can't look around, etc, etc.
Due to the lack of science imageboards I "made" one
http://www.imageboard4free.com/board/science/sci
If it works fine maybe it could be made a real chan or join another big chan.
For science, gadgets, steampunk, cyberpunk and geek culture
Any kind of science is welcome, geology, biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, mathematics...
If it get enough users I might create a humanities board.
What do you think?
Shit son. This is a good idea.
But there better not be any theism vs atheism bullshit.
>>2
Well, Religion is about faith and have nothing about scientific method so I would no allow religion threads in serious science boards It's like talk about physics in anime.
If the board becomes popular I will make more boards like a humanities board for ancient and modern languages, literature, history, philosophy... In the Humanities board serious religion discussion on a anthropological point of view would be allowed.
>>2
agreed.
also, there better not be any biology or chemistry or other fake science bullshit. physics or GTFO.
>>4
We need more people than physics to make a imageboard work, that's why there is gadgets, steampunk, cyberpunk and geek culture.
Also, for science doesn't matter what you believe (religion/politics), it's data or GTFO.
Update:
Now you can post videos too!
Data is meaningless without interpretation.
GUYS. "Data" is plural. Also: just because you have data, doesn't mean you have evidence, as they say.
I'm thinking in separate the board in different boards.
/science/ for science
/humanities/ for literature, history, philosophy, etc.
/geek/ for gadgets, steampunk, cyberpunk and not serious stuff
/otaku/ for japanese culture nerds
If the board continue growing I will see if I can use of ADs (just like 4chan) and get a domain...
>biology or chemistry or other fake science bullshit
lol
I was watching a History Channel documentary on parallel universe's and I noticed near the end they talked about traveling through a black hole to get to one. They said because of the size, they'd have to send a tiny nanobot with our DNA to the other side instead of sending people.
If everything gets stretched as it goes in, IF there is another way out, would the object that went in come out normal?
you need to work on your troll sense, novice.
still typing from another universe to call you a faggot
Needs moar wormholes
>>1 traveling through a black hole
>>through a black hole
>>a black hole
>>black hole
Enjoy your lethal X-ray irradiation before you even pass the event horizon and are torn apart down to your constituent subatomic particles and possibly further than that by tidal forces.
SCIENCE!!
>>7
just hit the event horizon at 0.999c, problem solved.
So, I was thinking. If it is a "parallel" universe, does that not mean that it is detached from our own universe? Does that not mean that since it has no connection to our on universe, it is unreachable to any form, since the universe is "everything"? A "parallel" universe thus means another "everything", but since we can already see, and in the future perhaps reach "everything", how can we detect this other universe? Since they are parallel to each other, existing side by side, there could be an infinite amount of parallel universes beside our own. And if one can actually reach this "parallel" universe, it means there is a connection to our own, making this "parallel" universe just another part of our own universe?
>If it is a "parallel" universe, does that not mean that it is detached from our own universe?
It should occupy the same space/time, I guess.
>Does that not mean that since it has no connection to our on universe, it is unreachable to any form, since the universe is "everything"?
If it occupies the same space/time, it could be argued that it's part of our universe.
>A "parallel" universe thus means another "everything", but since we can already see, and in the future perhaps reach "everything", how can we detect this other universe?
If the trick to reach that universe was for example by changing phases at the subatomic level, we could build a out-of-phase camera that sees the other side.