Originally posted by Burning thought
1. Studies is just what ive done as can anyone else, the fact it has a seal of approval from a university is the only diffrence.
please give me an argument for why something that is not controlled, not double blinded, and not peer reviewed is as likely to be true as something that is blinded, controls for confounds, and is reviewed by experts in the field?
Originally posted by Burning thought
2. I like how you say ive given [b]NO definition then give a part of the definition.Drones:
-follow their peer groups
-follow social ideas like law (i.e its wrong to be gay!)
-cannot give reasons or explanations for actions they call part of their own behavior which you touched on below.[/B]
you can't see for yourself why that isn't a valid and objective criteria?
like, "reasons"? Any action a person makes without a reason that satisfies YOU is "drone like"? thats waaaaay too subjective.
list of terms you need to define:
follow
social ideas
law
gay?
reasons
explanations
actions
their own
behaviour
this all assumes learning things like speech patterns, similar slang, similar mannerisms, similar beliefs etc from the peer group can be prevented and is somehow beneficial...
I guess you would probably have to show some significant difference between social learning and other forms of learning. And SOMEHOW show how someone can NOT be influenced by their social environment. (re: this is relevant to neuroplasticity [which is the term used to describe the way neurons and genes in the brain respond to incoming stimuli, thus making it impossible to separate social/genetic influences of ANY cognitive process, as they are the same thing at that level])
Originally posted by Burning thought
3. You just basically proved my entire point, people present themselves as diffrent characters to fit in/follow the idea of soceity.
lol. thats really not your theory though, is it?
however, we have in fact been arguing the nature of human dualism, then the nature of scientific empiricism
Originally posted by Burning thought
4. I dont understand what your asking me, please ask me it in a diffrent more obvious way.
again, more my point.
Originally posted by Burning thought
You dont need as I said earlier however all these qualifcations and titles to tell you what people are.
no, you don't need them
however, to ignore real scientific data because you saw something on TV is the height of ignorance.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Can you show me the folk psychology that is found worthless?
start on page 1 of this thread.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Its easy looking from a social point of view, looking from a scientific point of view is difficult and in this instance irrelvent as well.
you aren't looking at things from a social point of view. You are looking from a point of view based on a pet theory that you just made up.