the existence of god is a scientific fact

[joe1776]

Nope, no link present. Hmmm, interesting how asking for a citation from you is wasting your time. Okay, lol.


So, you want me to examine people, not studies in psychology. Okay...

The link was added after posting.

No. I'm not going to chase down studies for you. it's obvious you don't know squat about the topic. You're not ready to look at the science.

 

[charlie sc]

The link was added after posting.

No. I'm not going to chase down studies for you.

Haha, you made the claim that, apparently, moral studies are a large part of psychology. If this is your opinion, fine. Who am I to argue? Neither will I argue with someone who has an opinion on any topic, especially if they know it's an opinion. Though, you seem to claim, as a fact, this is quite a large part of psychology as demonstrated by this quote bellow.

You don't know any psychology theories on morality, but those you know about are pretty substantiated?
Rationalist theories have dominated for years despite the fact that they don't hold up logically and there's no science to support them. The intuitionist theories are on the right track and science is supporting them but the studies are **** poor. Social scientists as yet don't have an elegant theory to explain how we make moral judgments.

If you want to backup your claim, that would be nice. If not, I cannot take you seriously. Ok, so you gave a link. Let's take a look.

The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

So, ummm, this site is strange but it's not scientific lol. Here is the description of them in the about section, ""Edge.org was launched in 1996 as the online version of "The Reality Club" and as a living document on the Web to display the activities of "The Third Culture." " lol
There seem to be scientist speakers are relating their experience and their knowledge, including scientific, to umm their opinions and beliefs on morality. I've actually recognised one of their names, because they're prolifically publishing. I see no citations, just workshops and them selling their books(?). lol

Errrr, psychology does not really have any discussions on morality. This is mainly because morality is a philosophy topic . I can see your confusion if you don't know really know what psychology is. Psychology is a science subject, not one that deals primarily with abstract concepts and how they relate to each other. There needs to be evidence. Nonetheless, you will get psychologists and scientists using research to further their thought experiments and their philosophy(in and outside of science). Granted, some studies get very close to studying morality, but they never really call it morality or talk about morality as a subject. There's no morality debate in psychology that I'm aware of lol. Very funny. Of course, you may try show I'm incorrect. I'd be pleasantly surprised.

it's obvious you don't know squat about the topic. You're not ready to look at the science.

Your knee jerk reaction is understandable if I'm asking something you can't really back up but you thought you could

 

[joe1776]

Haha, you made the claim that, apparently, moral studies are a large part of psychology.

I regard that, not as a claim to be supported, but common knowledge. It's sorta shocking that you regard the idea as an opinion.

Errrr, psychology does not really have any discussions on morality. This is mainly because morality is a philosophy topic .

You really should stop posting on this topic. You're drawing a blank. Morality (Kohlberg's theory on it has been taught in Psych 101 for years. even though it never had science supporting it.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Your knee jerk reaction is understandable if I'm asking something you can't really back up but you thought you could

You've just made a fool of yourself.

Moral psychology, In psychology, study of the development of the moral sense—i.e., of the capacity for forming judgments about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. The U.S. psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people’s development of moral standards passes through several levels.

Moral psychology

 

[charlie sc]

I regard that, not as a claim to be supported, but common knowledge. It's sorta shocking that you regard the idea as an opinion.

You really should stop posting on this topic. You're drawing a blank. Morality (Kohlberg's theory on it has been taught in Psych 101 for years. even though it never had science supporting it.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html



You've just made a fool of yourself.

Moral psychology, In psychology, study of the development of the moral sense—i.e., of the capacity for forming judgments about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. The U.S. psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people’s development of moral standards passes through several levels.

Moral psychology

Yes, I'm wrong. I think I deserve some slack since I've been teaching you psychology and you've been making a fool of yourself those whole thread, but then again, you are simple minded. It is discussed in psychology. Freud or Maslow, etc are taught in psychology even though Freud is considered pseudoscience and Maslow's hierarchy of needs is pure theory.. What I meant by not large part, is that the concept itself is not an empirical venture as a topic by itself and one always needs to draw on philosophy. You may have empirical evidence for behaviour, but what morality is, is largely left to philosophy. I've never seen an empirical study that will study morality by itself because you cannot measure morality. What you can do is measure human behaviour.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I'm wrong. I think I deserve some slack since I've been teaching you psychology and you've been making a fool of yourself those whole thread, but then again, you are simple minded.

This

 

[joe1776]

Yes, I'm wrong. I think I deserve some slack since I've been teaching you psychology and you've been making a fool of yourself those whole thread, but then again, you are simple minded.

Huh, that's surprising. I figured you'd come back and try to weasel out of your trap with some kind of semantic argument. Instead, you admit you're wrong but insult me.

Now, if you actually understood human nature (psychology), you'd realize that if you actually regarded me as simple-minded, your reaction would be pity. And the reason you insult me is because you know you lost the debate too and you're miffed.

It is discussed in psychology. Freud or Maslow, etc are taught in psychology even though Freud is considered pseudoscience and Maslow's hierarchy of needs is pure theory.. What I meant by not large part, is that the concept itself is not an empirical venture as a topic by itself and one always needs to draw on philosophy. You may have empirical evidence for behaviour, but what morality is, is largely left to philosophy. I've never seen an empirical study that will study morality by itself because you cannot measure morality. What you can do is measure human behaviour.

The vast majority of moral philosophers have been wrong for about three centuries because they assumed that the judgments of conscience are judgments of reason. Only David Hume had it right. The judgment of conscience are intuitive. They emerge immediately from the unconscious (Jon Haidt 2001).

https://www.motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf

 

[ecco]

If the original study did not get published there is no way many other people could have tried to replicate the study. In the example you discuss, 64% of additional experimenters could not replicate the original findings.

By what logic can you fault the publishers for publishing studies that later turned out could only be replicated 36% of the time?

Logically, those journals have a purpose, do they not?

Yes. Did you not read or did you not understand what I posted:

• If the experiments are reasonably well documented and have a sound footing, they may get published in peer-review publications.

• Other people read of the experiments

If the studies they publish cannot be expected to be science we can rely on, what is their purpose?

Did you not read or did you not understand what I posted:

• If the experiments are reasonably well documented and have a sound footing, they may get published in peer-review publications.

• Other people read of the experiments

So, I ask again...
By what logic can you fault the publishers for publishing studies that later turned out could only be replicated 36% of the time?

 

[ecco]

The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

From your link:

The failure of science to address questions of meaning, morality, and values, notes neuroscientist Sam Harris, has become the primary justification for religious faith. In doubting our ability to address questions of meaning and morality through rational argument and scientific inquiry, we offer a mandate to religious dogmatism, superstition, and sectarian conflict. The greater the doubt, the greater the impetus to nurture divisive delusions.
​

I guess the eminent Mr. Harris believes that religion came along at the same time as science came along. People were using GodDitIt long before anyone ever considered science. I'm quite certain Sam knows this so his comments can only be seen as intentionally deceitful.

In any event, I read through your linked article. I excerpted from it and I commented on the excerpt.

Based on past performance I doubt you have read anything in your linked website beyond the headline. I know that you posted no meaningful excerpt from it that supports your position. I know you did not comment, in your own words, on anything in the linked page to support your argument.

Why bother?

 

[ecco]

Instead, you admit you're wrong but insult me.

Uh, Joe, I hate to break it to you but I think the obvious sarcasm of Charlie's "I'm wrong" went right over your head.

 

[charlie sc]

Instead, you admit you're wrong but insult me.

Uh, you say I'm wrong but insult me. So, what's the problem?

Now, if you actually understood human nature (psychology),

Human nature is not really what psychology studies. It's human behaviour. Human nature is such a vague term and it's hardly mentioned, if it all, in psychology academia. Human nature if far more a philosophy term. Small point but, eh.

and the reason you insult me is because you know you lost the debate too and you're miffed.

I insulted you because you insulted me. your attitude has become more and more delinquent since I asked for citations and questioned you about this. I would have liked an intellectual discussion on this but I don't think I'll get it from you. I had to spend 3-5 pages,or more, showing you where you were wrong about the meta-analysis. Obviously, you managed to get there because you saw your logical inconsistency and what it was really about. When talking about morality and psychology, I actually said I'd be pleasantly surprised if I was wrong, because I would love to learn more of any topic that interests me. However, not if I have to do this dance again. When I think about it, I underestimated morality in psychology, but my position still holds. Morality as a concept is philosophical and it's not a large part. Of course, this is my opinion and if you'd like to challenge it, please demonstrate how it is a large part in psychology.

The vast majority of moral philosophers have been wrong for about three centuries because they assumed that the judgments of conscience are judgments of reason. Only David Hume had it right. The judgment of conscience are intuitive. They emerge immediately from the unconscious (Jon Haidt 2001).

https://www.motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf

Ok, well, I don't really want to discuss philosophy. I prefer evidence. I never knew that journal existed, but they seem to be doing quite well on the rank for misc types of psychology. These theories are grounded quite heavily in philosophy that's why you see it in philosophy journals. I guess someone needs to talk about the philosophy of psychology and theoretical constructs.
It's not for me, thanks.

 

[joe1776]

:By what logic can you fault the publishers for publishing studies that later turned out could only be replicated 36% of the time?

I understand that you think you've made a logical point.
If you can't understand that there has to be something wrong with a journal that's only capable of being reliable 36% of the time, there's nothing I can say.

 

[joe1776]

... I guess someone needs to talk about the philosophy of psychology and theoretical constructs.
It's not for me, thanks.

Me neither, Charlie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that you think you've made a logical point.
If you can't understand that there has to be something wrong with a journal that's only capable of being reliable 36% of the time, there's nothing I can say.

A journal that is reliable not 36% of the time is more than 36 times more reliable than a concept that cannot be repeated even 1% of the time.

 

[joe1776]

A journal that is reliable not 36% of the time is more than 36 times more reliable than a concept that cannot be repeated even 1% of the time.

Even if your "less than 1%" claim was true (It's not) that's still a worthless journal. But I'll give you credit for stamina in debate.

 

[joe1776]

...Hence, it incorporates your beloved psi. You are criticizing the processes of your own belief system and don't even realize it. That's really sad.

However, psi research isn't included in the journals of psychology. You forgot?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
:By what logic can you fault the publishers for publishing studies that later turned out could only be replicated 36% of the time?

I understand that you think you've made a logical point.
If you can't understand that there has to be something wrong with a journal that's only capable of being reliable 36% of the time, there's nothing I can say.

Why do you say they are being unreliable? Their job is not to determine if the results of the experiments are replicable.

Their job is to evaluate if a testing procedure was conducted within reasonable guidelines and if the results fall within reasonable parameters.

If you submit a paper that says your six-year-old daughter looked at a deck of cards and transmitted the viewings to you and you got 15 in a row correct, no one would publish your paper.

 

[ecco]

However, psi research isn't included in the journals of psychology. You forgot?

What?

The Biology of Telepathy
Is brain-to-brain communication possible? Here's what research finds.




Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans - Dean Radin

www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Eisenberg1979.pdf
by H EISENBERG - ‎2001 - ‎Cited by 9 - ‎Related articles
Published as a separate and in The Journal of Psychology, 1979, 103, 19-43. TELEPATHIC ... senders and receivers in a telepathy experiment. The sender was ...​