Welcome to Gaia! ::

sweatdrop Not to sound like an asinine fool sweatdrop

Please elaborate xd Cause i'm pretty sure this can be an interesting conversation.

Might just end quickly if you wanted just our opinions and thoughts about psychology in general.

I don't feel psychology is a science. It isn't something that is fully understood, nor is it always correct or reliable.

It depends on how you look at that. I am actually doing a report to disprove the scientific method, so what I have said is not illogical in my eye. I do not believe modern science is a proper way of gathering information, because it is biased.

So you haven't essentially proven me wrong or anything...

Science, however, the physical sciences, have consistent results. Psychology never does. It "depends on the person" they say. "Their experiences, ideas, morals, and thoughts" dictate the results of "what they will do." Psychology is a big word for second-guessing people, and I've always believed that very action was an unwise one...

As does everything. You're not disproving my statement.

It is widely accepted by the general community as true. That is what makes something the truth by their perspective. It is generally the science world VS the religious world. People who philosophize and use their minds for themselves are not exactly rare, but they are the minority. They do matter, but it is clear that society does not accept those ideas, as true or untrue they may be.

Philosophy and science cannot be better proven than the other. People just accept science more commonly due to it's physical aspects, in which, most people can experience through multiple senses. As for philosophy, a lot of imagining things like quantum mechanics take trying to imagine a fourth demension and other concepts that are not physically computable (don't believe me? Hawking said that himself).

You have looked for a fallacy in my statement where there need not be one.

Electrons do not go "back and forth" between charge. They have a negative charge.

As far as their definitions, this is of course under debate. Yes, yes. Go ahead, think of me as a fool. I am only a little less than half way through A Brief History of Time, and that's just one guy's opinion (though, as we know, Stephen Hawking is a very respected physicist). It is true that scientists argue. Hawking has always had very many people oppose him. It is true that science, as well as philosophy and other concepts, is under very much debate. The discovery of quarks has led us to smaller units, and it is very possible that we will discover even smaller units than those.

Talking about very big or very small science can disprove any credibility in science. There is however, things we have known for centuries. Water, for instance. States of matter. How things work biologically. Certain things in science, on a fundamental level, have been proven, and generally excepted for centuries. Using theoretical science as a scape goat to whether or not science is credible is pretty much like me saying that because we cannot prove God exists, religion cannot be true. It's a rather vague and poor connection, since things are not black and white.

It is easily argued through philosophy that we cannot prove anything. Yes, I agree with this concept. So do many scientists. Again I will mention Hawking. He realizes and acknowledges in his studies that underneath every theory and idea, none of it can be proven. In that sense, people shouldn't argue or discuss anything! Human curiosity, and perception, however, leads us to believe things are more true that others.

The exact same could be said about anything you argue or say. That arguement is so terribly full of blasphemy because those who preach it never apply it to their own arguments.

Not if you're a philosopher. If you think of things through the eyes and mind of a philosopher, each "observer" has their own individual truth.

I believe science and religion can be combined in many aspects. Modern physicists are "proving" (I say this in quotes since proof is a rather... well, you know xp ) ideas regarding quantum mechanics, which suggests that matter is a byte of possibilities... it really is hard to define matter now that these concepts have been brought into light.

Funny that you mention that right after I just did in my reply (I did not see this part of your post yet). It's hard to say. It's actually silly for people to ask answers to these questions from me. Just like the rest of you, I am simply presenting thoughts. None of us have proof. Otherwise, we'd all agree.

This is not a new idea to me.

You don't sound all that way, it is just sometimes... peculiar, how people feel I don't study or read books. Nothing anyone has said here is new to me, yet they look down on me. Very... odd. Just odd. I don't feel an emotion. I really am indifferent.

Oh, no, you misunderstood me, I meant that the concept of what is an electron goes from it being just the negative charge itself and, thus, weightless, to being a finite piece of material.


I think of no one as a fool but the foolish themselves. Well, on the one hand, I don't give anyone enough of a passing thought for such feelings/dispositions. If anything, and please do not take this to be something mean, I do not disapprove of what you say to the extent of thinking you to be a fool. If anything, I nothing you on that extent. In the grand scheme, it makes no difference whether anyone, especially us, are right or wrong, loving or hateful. If you ask for my preference though, I'd much rather have more friends than not.

As for the rest of the stuff, I still think you are misinterpretting what I have been meaning to say.

Wow, you sure do quote the books alot... Hawking? who is this hawking of which you speak? (sorry for the joke at your expense, no harm meant) I think whatever argument or whatever it appears that you are going at Resurrection, and apparently trying to startwith me, is just that you are looking at things with a different perspective than Res, and same for I towards both of you.

Hmm? I had an argument? I never realized that, wow, I feel smarter already! I don't know though, there's some word in English where you see someone, one facet of that person, and then you assume something about that person that may or my not be true... Cannot think of it for the life of me. But, to either extent, I never say anything without the small disclaimer that what I say may or may not be correct, it is merly a stab at what might be an opinion. You need a pair of rose-colored glasses to see the special ink, but still, it is there. besides, I never speak as though I am an authority on anything, and if I do, then, well, that's a boo-boo. You can ask Obscurus and Resurrection... I'm really an idiot... I just have a cute smile and nice butt so everyone ignores my moronicism.

ahh, you see, I always looked at it through the cave wall allusion, where we are cavemen facing the wall, reality is past the opening to the outside, but the most we will ever see of reality is the reflection of it off the walls of our perspectives; thus, everyone's personal "truth" is anything but the truth, rather it is an illusion of... eh you get where I'm goingwith that. BUT, I think that chalks up to one of those looking at the same thing from different directions. Where the definition of stuff may be one thing to you, it appears to be something different for me. Like you say "bunny" and I say "super hoppy magical floppy earred ninja".

Oh, ha, no, I wasn't looking to you for answers, merely wanting your input/idea on the whole thing. I was heading into the discussion realm rather than "ask the guru"... I have enough time dealing with guru's at school.

Good, because otherwise, you'd have the brain power of a pop-tart... strawberry flavored... j/k


Ahh I know what you mean, nah, I think you read, or at least are capable of reading. Te thing is, I am... very moody. I go from being this happy person that wants to be happy and help ppl and yada yada yada, and then, I get to dark Azi... all ... umm... dark and mysterioso. I don't look down on you, and I try to never quote anyone so they don't think that I am tryin to shove anything in their face. The bad side, however, is that people tend to not take me seriously when they need me to. Like in my Organic Chem lab last semester, I kept telling people of all these shortcuts and stuff that they could do, and even told this one person what he needed to do to get his reactants to react correctly,and of course, no one listened, so half the class was there for an hour longer than what they needed to be.

I never study, though. So I really don't see what that proves, because I still have a pretty good GPA ^^. And reading... aren't such wonderful (sarcasm) sources of intellect like Star and nationalEnquirer considered reading as well?

I guess what I mean to say is that be glad you feel that they are judging your "actions" rather than you yourself. You seem like a cool enough person. but there is one thing you can't lie about. You say that you do not feel an emotion, but, even if you do not realize, you do. It is ok to be angry at people, or whatever the right emotion would be. Hell, I'm totally pissed off at the "friends" that I've been working with for a year (friday was my one year anniv.! yippeee) because they took my idea (I work in a federally funded TriO program where I tutor and help students when I'm not in class) to start a type of "session" where I couldhelp students learn study skills and habits and, you know, tackle their problems that keep the students from getting good grades....

well, they took my idea and gaveit to this new person, and the entire development of it and everything went on behind my back. So yeah, I feel rather betrayed and hurt, but, umm ?luckily? Evil Azi will have his revenge by flooding the building with mutated cheese ninjas.

I guess what that little trip into wasting time with Azi-kun was getting at is that you shouldn't feel like anyone is trying to attack you or anything, maybe that's just the way he/she/we/I sound when we talk/type.

Psychology is really a pseudo science or discipline.

Science has variables does it not? Psycology is just variables measured against a norm.

There is co0nsistency up to the point of individuality. Given a group pf people with similar personality types behaviour can be predicted fairly accuraely. as can interractions between known types.

I don't quite grasp what you are getting at, True, it is dealing with mind rather than brain and is therefore subject to many variations, but there are abnormalities in brain regions shown to result in cognitive abnormalities. These are present in all scans of those with certain mental conditions , alcoholism for instance. That's scientific consistency.

I do agree that there are problems in defining just what can be classed as a mental illness. I persoanlly think there is absolutely no evidence for ADHD and that it is a mere pill pushing exercise.