Why can't people respect the passion of other people? I'm studying international relations, and even though that's a social science, I still enjoy and respect those going into science because what they do is hard as well, but just in a different way. I still really enjoy astronomy and comsology, and am planning to minor in environmental science, but people consider me less intelligent because I'm not going to be a chemistry major. It's so annoying!
I love sociology.......... :( I don't consider it science, since people cannot be scienced, but it's not not science. It is unique and interesting........
Ummm people in the hard sciences have to write papers and attend conferences communicating their work. As many papers as I wrote in undergrad, I should have got an English second major.
my globalization teacher should be paying me, i write ten page essays about things having nothing to do with my major so he can have a job despite not majoring in a useful field.
I find it funny that many of the same people who deride Psychology as an invalid 'pseudo science' , put religious type faith in IQ tests which were developed and invented by these same pseudo scientists.
@JimBowie1133 Good point :P I'm majoring in Psychology and trust me, it's a science... I can imagine people not trusting the school of psychoanalysis, but I know more about neurology and genetics than I know about Freud
@JimBowie1133 Psychology, cognitive Psychology, Psychometrics... are sciences. Don't mix Psychology with Psychoanalysis... The second one IS THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE
Psychology, Sociology, Economics, History, Anthropology, Political Science, are the most interesting courses of study because they deal with the depths and complexities of human thought and behavior...They are based on observation, complex analysis, critical/creative thought and reasoning. I consider them more of Arts than Sciences. They are more like arts backed up with statistical analysis.
@the1musiclad , Again I think its somewhere in between, I'm not saying this as a put down. I have tremendous respects for the works of certain Psychologists, Sociologists, Linguists, etc. As a matter of fact, one must be thoroughly brilliant to be a great linguist. I believe art and science are intrinsically connected, most of the great scientists had creative artistic minds (Einstein) also Artists create approaches to things which can be scientifically examined (Bach).
@the1musiclad , science is a process of obtaining better descriptions for the physical world around us, it looks for concrete laws and to make exact predictions. The scientific method is very difficult to apply fully to human behavior because it is not truly possible/ethical to observe and manipulate human beings and groups in controlled settings in the same way as it is to with atoms, molecules, etc. Bottom line, Physical science deals with 'things' and people are not 'things'.
@JimBowie1133 - what is really the distinction between 'people' and 'things' though? I consider the skin of a human being just as much a 'thing' as the bark of a tree. Similarly, I consider the vocal tract a 'thing'. I consider the brain a 'thing'. I consider SOUND a thing. The brain is potentially just as observable as anything in nature.
@the1musiclad ,Its complicated but I think there is a difference. The moment you separate the bark from the tree it becomes a thing , but before that it was alive as part of the tree and not something external to the whole tree, even though we describe it as so. People, animals, trees etc...are made of 'matter' but they are not simply 'matter'. I guess they are 'things' with observable consciousness and conscious expression.
@JimBowie1133 I don't believe anything is 'created' by a linguist except theory. There is extensive experimentation on the physical world done reguarly by linguists. The whole basis of modern lingusistic theory works on the assumption it is science. Furthermore, exact predictions are possible within phonology and child langauge acquisition. Syntactic theory and sociolinguistics are very much social sciences however many parts of linguistics are what I would call physical science.
@the1musiclad , I guess the better word for 'creation' is 'discovery', a creation and a discovery are similar. For example music scales weren't in essence 'created' by people, they were discoveries of frequency patterns which exist in nature. I am not really schooled in linguistics, but in the trend in the modern social sciences in general the approach is to try follow a purely scientific model, in order to be deemed legit, I think this approach has been very limiting.
@uni4dfx that is a quite dumb answer. We should study a science not for finding a job but for the love of knowledge.
I study Sociology and i don't think that it is a "Science", although, with its methodology we can better understand how society works.
But at the end the social sciences conclusions are merely common sense observations. There are no real theories in social sciences, the term theory should not be applied to a intellectual thin field as the social sciences. I do agree with sheldon
@ApplausableGuy Theres no reason I can see that sociiology couldnt become a respectable field of science if people took the right course of action.and methodology Learn how to learn about people before attempting to learn about people, learn how to learn about societies before learning about societies.
@ApplausableGuy , I disagree with you ( and Noam Chomsky) on that point. Maybe there are no 'laws' but there are theories of human behavior and development that have sound solid statistical backing. For example Piaget's theories on human development, Erikson's theories on life stages, Emile Durkheim's theories on suicide. It is very easy to call them common sense observations after the ideas have been laid out by the one's who studied and explained the phenomenon.
@JimBowie1133 Durkheim showed that Protestants, males, singles, may be more likely to suicide than other people, but that is just a statistical proof and it is very descriptive and very little. He also had a very radical holistic methodology and ignored the individual problems.
Social sciences can't overcome the demarcation problem because the social knowledge is intellectually thin. The social scientists are influenced by ideology, common sense, ethnocentrism and personal interest in their work
@ApplausableGuy , no, it is a theory backed up by statistical proof, and behind it opens up the questions of how and why those variables affect human behavior in regards to suicide. It is only 'very little' if you just look at just the face of the theory. I agree there are limits to the types of studies that can be done due to ethics and practicality. Human subjects are not available to be manipulated and observed in controlled settings as is done with molecules and atoms.
@uni4dfx I find it funny when people in the "hard" sciences think their degree makes them more employable. Unless you go into research and academia, concrete knowledge about the natural sciences isn't super useful in the work force. Writing and communication skills are.
I used to make jokes about social science, economics, business etc,.... sometimes even biology, basically everything that is not chemistry, physics, mathematics. I got my fancy degree but I understand now I was behaving like a bully, hurting the feelings of people around me. Of course, people smile, laugh cuz they love you but mocking everything they worked for is NOT cool. They may not show it but it hurts, trust me. Dont be obnoxious like me, you will regret it.
@Losuol: You don't know what the word science means. Engineering is NOT a science. It is a practical application of physics. Just like medicine is not a science, biology is a science. Science is systematic study of & theorizing about the workings of nature. The application knowledge thus obtained is the acquisition of that knowledge. But then I find that most people in the "hard" sciences have a poor grasp of basic logic, failing to see the philosophical foundations of their own field.
Social "sciences" are not sciences, they are scholarship. When they try to be "scientific" they usually fail, except when they gather spesific data about spesific issues.
Update: As a result of Sky News AGAIN exposing Dr. Vincent McKee as a fraudster in MARCH 2011, McKee has now changed his name to PATRICK KELLY. His company is based at Jesson House, Coventry. He can change his name and his company's name every few months, but he can't change the name of the building. If you see JESSON HOUSE in the address, A V O I D the company cause he will use your credit/devbit card details to S T E A L your money.
WARNING TO ALL STUDENTS:Dr. Vincent McKee,who used to run a company in Coventry offering private tuition,called ICUT (UK),has now changed the name of the company to University and Academy Tutors,or UAT (GB).DO NOT approach ICUT/UAT for your tutorial needs.Dr.Vincent McKee was outed as a FRAUDSTER by Sky News in January 2011.As a result,McKee has changed his company's name & HIS OWN NAME:henow calls himself Patrick Murray &he's STILL DEFRAUDING STUDENTS.Google his name
The irony is that a socially inept savant dislikes a branch of study that deals with that very limitation. He rejects the limitation instead of attempting to understand or appreciate it. Also, he's a stereotype of a dogmatic and witless person. The fact that real people can connect with him on a serious or real level is just pathetic.
@OneTrueEdge He explains that "irony" in the script. He can't use brain probes, therefore he is stuck using the enormously weak methods of the soft (i.e. social) sciences. His cartoonish logic-man character is appreciated by many because he often notices the nonsensical of day to day life. Traditional psychology and the social sciences offer us an endless string of fads with nothing more than Oprah and Dr. Phil type thoughts backing them up.
@BfSkinnerPunk In that regard, he's completely unlike the Spock and Data characters of the same archetype; he offers no insight or complexity into the human condition from an analytic perspective. The character is more the arrogant and smarmy kind, which is not beneficial or productive, and frankly only serves to highlight his own vice and iniquity. No affirmation. This character, and television show, is the equivalent of a cheeto.
You can get what this is trying to do from better sources.
@OneTrueEdge I think we agree. Like I said, he is cartoonish. He presents his criticisms to a potential public that is hearing those critiques for the first time. Many probably feel that social "science" is comparable to the natural sciences.... in fact, they've probably never considered that there is a distinction. I do not feel that this distinction is made frequently enough. Too many people give the psychological evaluation as much credence as a chemical analysis.
@BfSkinnerPunk Yes, I think so, just for different reasons. I see your point, though. I tend to think that a mixing, or synthesis is necessary. The subjective and objective in unison with interpretation and representation. Science, like philosophy, is supposed to arrive at truths, not establish dogma or static thought. Whether it be several truths, or one universal one, the goal is the same -- so far as the mission is remembered.
@People agreeing with Sheldon: He often 'sums up' topics he knows little about, in a very inaccurate way (this is a humor style his character uses often)
If you're thinking to yourself "yeah Sheldon, you tell em! psychology/social psych is so laaame!", then you too do not know enough about it.
The greatest problem in the social sciences is that it is not possible to study humans as you would in the natural sciences. Whereas an object is predictable, humans are all different and erratic. Therefore obtaining objective knowledge or scientific laws is difficult if not impossible. This is coming from a undergraduate in criminology.
I'm a psychology major, and think this show is awesome, but I would rather be good at socializing with women and be shitty at physics than be really good at physics but shitty when it comes to interpersonal relationships
@trickmastermonkey fucking lmao @ mad underwater basketweaving major. id kill myself too if i majored in social sciences. u mad u wasted your pathetic life on a worthless major? u mad?
@ltohang no I'm not mad.. I just think the reason why you have so much hate trying to bring other people down is that deep inside you know it's true, that you're a worthless piece of shit. I bet in real life you're a fucking loser hahahah. what's the matter, got turned down by a girl? or maybe a boy? or let me guess, you're too pussy to even try am I right? did my first comment on this video hit the sweet spot? oh man, do the world a favor and don't breed ok? =)
@trickmastermonkey fucking LOL'd. oh man, you social science majors fail beyond measure. (not that you can measure, or do anything useful in the first place). go take you and your shitty major buddies and jump off a bridge and do the world a favor. imagine what a great world it would be if all you useless majors are just genocided. this is my last comment in this useless conversation. i'm gonna go do something useful now. u mad
Social sciences are like astrology or creationism. They start with the conclusion and then look for facts to support it rather than look at the facts and then form a conclusion. It is of no value but I did take several social science courses for the easy credit.
@cavejourney "Social sciences are like astrology or creationism. They start with the conclusion and then look for facts to support it rather than look at the facts and then form a conclusion. It is of no value but I did take several social science courses for the easy credit" Same here. :>
@tmla But the "science" that is produced by it is in almost all the cases very very questionable.... Just today here in Holland, there was a big deal on the news about a professor in Psychology who contributed to countless "scientific articles" and books with data that was obtained by.... well himself! Haha... He said he went to various schools trying to obtain as much data as possible to prove his theory. He propably couldnt prove his theory in the "good way", so he made all his shit up!
Also, you ask what slavery has to do with religion. Nothing obviously in the context that I originally pointed out. But interestingly enough, your Jesus doesn't seem to think it was a bad idea.
"If you get purely technical it isn't?" science is just the method with which you attempt to understand something. social science follows the laws and methodology of science and statistics. therefore social science is science. Social science - Sociology (Psychology Anthropology). Natural Science - Physics (Chemistry/ Biology). MATH is the language. STATS is the only thing that binds us all together.
@demonson161 Not even close. Sheldon is 100% right about social sciences being largely hokum. Science relies completely on facts. Social sciences relies mainly on interpretations of deluded opinions which are based on lousy research.
As an undergraduate in the "Hokum" sciences (Poli Sci/ Econ) I totally agree. For some reason we can't just take a population, put them in an isolated system (e.g. an island), and see how they react to a Totalitarian regime that promotes free market economy... its apparently un-ethical.
@HeshMetalhead Actually, many years ago (during WWII I believe) there was a study that looked at how kids made out under a system that approximated Democracy and one that approximated a Dictatorship. They did better in the Democratic system.
My wife is a social worker and I love ribbing her about having a Bachelors of "Science". I saw this when we were watching "Big Bang" and it made my day!
I like science in religion: one requires faith while the other concrete facts! I wont say which is which. Thats my statement and not an invitaion to debate!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i think there is a huge difference between science and religion. religion is trying to explain why and science is trying to explain how. no more fights please :P
@uni4dfxooooh really. there is the question why human exist. in christianity the answer is that god made us to protect every life on earth. there is a why and there is an answer e_e. i dont even believe in god im just saying what happens. and plus by offending me you dont make your arguement stronger.
@uni4dfx the word to remember is theory. religion and science both try to explain why and how. but if you just stop listening to opinions & do research you find out how insightful religions can be. for example, much that is said in the bible is scientific fact (esp. regarding creation....i know) if you just read the book instead of listening to other haters, you may see that. but everyone's entitled to their opinion. but jus cuz u may not be religious doesnt mean ur smarter than those who are
@nielso212 He said all religion does is make stuff up on the spot. Scientific theory is drawing an untestable conclusion based on observation(s). In other words, he gave a crude definition for scientific theory to try and slander religion. In addition, there are religious scholars who research religious philosophy, so it's not all just the "God did it" crap you hear from red-necks...
@uni4dfx oh please all science does is make theories and say they are true. you all think that the universe andl ife was created by chance?????
Idiocies of people astound me.... the big bang was created by 2 substances.... where did they come from??? you all believe that something comes from something so where did those come from........ hmmmm.....atleast religion gives people something to believe. it gives them something to live for.... not living against it.
@uni4dfx A lot of people say the universe and life was made by chance. If you don't think God did it, other than chance, what DO you think people say it came from?
And there is a God. Miracles happen and atheists who actually examine them acknowledge that there is no explanation for them. Stop saying there isn't when you can't know for absolute certain that there isn't.
@adrimare1 Just because an Atheist doesn't have an explanation doesn't make your explanation right. If somebody asks us "What is the moon made out of?" and I say I don't know, and you say "Macaroni and Cheese" you aren't right by default because I don't have an answer. Why don't you learn some basic logic? Oh wait, I'm wasting my time. As House said, "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people." And if miracles are true, what about amputees?
@awalkinggod You've probably heard this before, but God wants us to believe in Him because of faith, not by giving us too much proof that nobody could deny it. That's for the end of the world.
And about the 'who created God' thing, philosophy states that there has to be an uncaused causer for everything because otherwise nothing would exist. I believe that God is that Uncaused Causer.
@uni4dfx Regarding point #4, I kindly ask that you please watch a movie entitled "Serenity" by a Joss Whedon. If you have already seen it, please watch it again and note the recurring message about the importance of belief.
I understand religion and belief are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough that the message remains the same: rightly placed belief is essential for those seeking a meaningful life. Hopefully the movie will help you understand this. Have a good day.
@uni4dfx 1) agree 2) agree 3) Science can't proove or disproove the existence of god, thereby there can't be an answer to this question. It is up for belief, and you belief he is not here. 4) Religion, can as anything else, be the base of your way of looking at life and thereby give people something to live for. Like: spreading the same happiness you feel. Do you work for the inquisition? You do sound like one with your stupid insults and ignorance towards others belief! need a cookie?
@uni4dfx Science uses current understandings to identify and explain phenomina rationally. Nothing about that refutes the existence of a God whatsoever. If you were to truely take the scientific approach to the question the answer would have to be undertermined, which means that there is no way of knowing either way whether a God does or does not exist. Religion is the gap between taking the unknowable and applying faith to one answer or another.
@uni4dfx So saying there is no god is having a religion.
Saying that nobody is saying that life was created by chance is denying the driving principles behind the idea of a godless existence. If life was not created by chance then it was created by design, if it was created by design then there must have been a designer. That designer would be what pepole call God.
Assuming the universe is eternal denies astrological evidence putting the age of the universe at around 14.6 billion years old.
@uni4dfx 1. You're confusing theory with hypothesis. Theories come from testing hypotheses and proving or disproving them. That IS science!; 3. Current evidence points to the Big Bang as the origin of the universe. If the universe were eternal, all matter would be long decayed into the most simple elements; 4. A common fallacy is that if one believes in something one calls "God", one must be a fundie Christian who interperts the Bible literally. What if "God" is the Universe? Or the Diest God?
@B4n5h33Chess someone else already responded to other parts of what you said, so I'll just throw this back at ya: You think "God" just appeared by chance?
@B4n5h33Chess As House said, "It isn't about what's fun, it's about the truth." Additionally, your logic is insane. Your argument is basically this, "This is too complex, so it had to be created by something." That opens the question to "Well if the universe is so complicated that it had to be created by God, then who created God? And who created the thing that created God? And so on and so forth. Go read a book you ignorant buffoon.
@uni4dfx Religion mostly is faith based. It is true that religion attempts to explain those things that science has not explained. The universe is a vast place. It is natural for many to believe in a higher power (even some respected scientists). You are entitled to your opinion on religion and God, but it is not necessary to be condescending. Extend courtesy to others that have a differing opinion. One may not be able to prove there is a God, but remember that one cannot prove that there isn't.
@ASUGIRL09 Yet another religious idiot. The burden of proof isn't on me. If I said that I saw bigfoot in the bathroom at Disneyland, *I* would have to prove to you that what I say is true, it wouldn't be your job to prove me wrong. Additionally, what you argue is called "God of the gaps reasoning." Even most theologists think it is bad because as science advances there are less places for your God to hide.
@awalkinggod A perfect example of why it is pointless to have an enlightening conversation with a person that harbors such hatred towards differing opinions. I have nothing against you for not believing in God. If you will look back at my comment, you will notice that I didn't place the burden of proof on anyone. I was simply stating that no one could prove one side or the other. Note that just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I hate advances in science. It allows me to know God even more.
@awalkinggod See I couldn't say I disliked stupidity because I believe it to be too broad a term and exceedingly condescending. As for me, I dislike rudeness. I also dislike it when people are unwilling to debate things like an adult without adding useless words to bring down others. I'm sure many would be willing to have an educational conversation with you if you left out phrases such as "ignorant buffoon" and "deluded opinions." These phrases are useless in debating the issue at hand.
@ASUGIRL09 Once again, House said it best "If rational arguments worked on religious people, there would be no religious people." Ergo, there is no point in having a rational debate with a religious person. They are presented with a rational argument, and they create a silly rationalization. And the wheels on the bus go round and round.
@awalkinggod There are many things one can learn about history and culture through examination of the Bible and other religious texts. They are fascinating fragments of our development through time. Also, debating religion and the existence of a God promotes philosophical and logical thinking regardless if you're a believer or not. Many brilliant thinkers (Aquinas, Darwin, Lewis) were theologians. Hm, quoting House a fictional character? Nice "rational" argument to prove your point. Duly noted.
@ASUGIRL09 As I said, creating rationalizations is all you people are good at. Should I comment on the irony of somebody that quotes The Bible bitching about a fictional character being quoted? Or how that hardly discredits the argument? Also, discussing religion demeans logical arguments. Take your arguments for example. Many brilliant people were religious, so what? Many also owned slaves, does that make slavery a good idea?
@awalkinggod Really should read more carefully. I did not quote the Bible. I stated that history and culture could be studied through religious texts. This is a fact acknowledged by historians (unlike House). I did not say logical argument, I stated logical "thinking." Again, considering it is a part of the philosophy department it does stretch the walls of your mind. I did not state they were religious, I said they were theologians. BIG difference. Not all theologians are religious, but they...
@ASUGIRL09 ...study religion to study the human race. What does slavery have to do with religion? Believers and non-believers alike owned slaves. There is no distinction. But, what can I say? Your brilliance far surpasses mine. I'm a complete moron despite my three degrees. Oh well.
@ASUGIRL09 You named smart people who were religious as a justification for it being a good idea, I was pointing out that many smart people owned slaves and that just because somebody was smart and happened to be religious or owned slaves doesn't mean a thing. As for smart people and religion, it is a well known fact that the smarter you are the less likely you are to be religious. How shocking? Stupid people are more likely to believe bullshit! Crazy talk! To be continued....
@awalkinggod Yea, slave argument is a bit all over the place. I didn't state it was a justification for religion being a good thing, I was making the argument that one can have an intelligent conversation with a person who is a believer and knowledgeable about religion. One point I must make, there is a difference between being a believer and being religious. What is your justification of Einstein believing in a higher power? He was an extremely intelligent man. The point I'm trying to make...
@awalkinggod ...is that just because someone believes in a God (be that Jehovah or the monkey at the center of the Earth) doesn't mean they are stupid, and you are ignorant in assuming that. I do not assume all atheists are jerks just because I have one bad encounter. That is counterproductive to society. I don't hide behind paper honey, if I did I wouldn't continue to challenge you with historical references, broad thinking and a vocabulary that doesn't slander people of a particular group.
@ASUGIRL09 You didn't quote it to me, but I'll bet you've quoted it before. Either way, you don't say a word about the argument instead you attack the source. How very logical of you. And do I sense some hostility from you? Would Jesus want you to be hostile? Oh no, it looks as though I've met another religious hypocrite.
@awalkinggod I have quoted it before, when people have been curious about it and in trying to connect different parts of the Bible. It can be quite an interesting discussion. The Bible is a great read regardless if you believe it or not (you should check out the Oxford Annotated one, pretty cool historical references). I can't say anything about the argument if it doesn't properly address what was said. I hold no hostility towards you. I'm actually having fun articulating myself.
Reconciling religion and science is easy. All you have to do is acknowledge that one has nothing to do with the other. To say that religion and science can't coexist is like saying that a love of cheesecake and hockey can't coexist. They have nothing to do with each other and liking one doesn't preclude or reinforce a preference for the other.
I don't really care for social science but its rather funny how most other scientists disclaim the social sciences as an actual science. I said 'science' too much there, so I hope it still made sense...
I was wondering if anyone was going to say that. Some experts consider it a social science, some don't. If you get purely technical, it isn't, but for practical purposes, it is. The important thing is Sheldon was talking about the Psychology of Friendship (or love), which is a subject studied by Psychologists (Go to any College or University and take a course called Social Psychology. You will learn about what causes people to like and love one another.).
@padawan6691 "Go to any College or University and take a course called Social Psychology" I'd rather not. Academia has pretty much destroyed the world I live in. I look at things from a completely different angle now and wouldn't destroy the last enee-wenee bit of romance (in a literary sense) that is left. But thanks for the offer.
You're funny. I have heard of the church of scientology. I am not quite sure what it is, but I guess it doesn't really matter since religion is even more hokum than the social sciences lol. Read what I said above, I have seen psychologists for years, and I know many people who have similarly seen psychologists, it simply doesn't work. Totally hokum.
There are a million reasons why religion is hokum. A small sample: A big part of religion is the idea that we can choose how we act and if we are good we go to heaven, if we are bad we go to hell. A large amount of scientific evidence strongly disagrees. For example, there is the study that found that people born into families with criminals but immediately adopted into families without criminals are still more likely to become criminals themselves. Evidence for genes for criminality.
This has been flagged as spam show
Why can't people respect the passion of other people? I'm studying international relations, and even though that's a social science, I still enjoy and respect those going into science because what they do is hard as well, but just in a different way. I still really enjoy astronomy and comsology, and am planning to minor in environmental science, but people consider me less intelligent because I'm not going to be a chemistry major. It's so annoying!
sparkshift 4 days ago
21 DISLIKES FROM the kids who couldn't get into a decent program in uni! I rather go to college to be an electrician than go into social "science"
thegreatfat1 5 days ago
is social science even falsifiable? that's the test for whether anything is science.
aj19bcx 1 week ago
i wish if i could understand physicis
:(
sheldon make it look more fun than it is
like if you agree
ALwALeeDss100 1 week ago
I love sociology.......... :( I don't consider it science, since people cannot be scienced, but it's not not science. It is unique and interesting........
thePANDASgirl13 2 weeks ago
@thePANDASgirl13 >_<
89murph 2 weeks ago
@89murph Me too..... the world is so annoying
thePANDASgirl13 2 weeks ago
Scientists research, bureaucrats and economists make something useful out of it.
benutzer29915022 3 weeks ago
Ummm people in the hard sciences have to write papers and attend conferences communicating their work. As many papers as I wrote in undergrad, I should have got an English second major.
BVanAlphen 1 month ago
my globalization teacher should be paying me, i write ten page essays about things having nothing to do with my major so he can have a job despite not majoring in a useful field.
aj19bcx 1 month ago
I find it funny that many of the same people who deride Psychology as an invalid 'pseudo science' , put religious type faith in IQ tests which were developed and invented by these same pseudo scientists.
JimBowie1133 2 months ago 2
@JimBowie1133 Good point :P I'm majoring in Psychology and trust me, it's a science... I can imagine people not trusting the school of psychoanalysis, but I know more about neurology and genetics than I know about Freud
ethalinia 1 month ago
@JimBowie1133 Psychology, cognitive Psychology, Psychometrics... are sciences. Don't mix Psychology with Psychoanalysis... The second one IS THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE
Montecristo21 2 weeks ago
Sheldon is against Sociology because he is anti-social. But Sheldon and Sociology are both useful in their own way. I love this show :D
leegeorgeson 2 months ago 4
Im a physicist, But I find social sciences interesting also
0warrior4life 2 months ago 14
Psychology, Sociology, Economics, History, Anthropology, Political Science, are the most interesting courses of study because they deal with the depths and complexities of human thought and behavior...They are based on observation, complex analysis, critical/creative thought and reasoning. I consider them more of Arts than Sciences. They are more like arts backed up with statistical analysis.
JimBowie1133 3 months ago
@JimBowie1133 - What about Lingusitics? Do you consider that an Art or a Science?
the1musiclad 2 months ago
@the1musiclad , Again I think its somewhere in between, I'm not saying this as a put down. I have tremendous respects for the works of certain Psychologists, Sociologists, Linguists, etc. As a matter of fact, one must be thoroughly brilliant to be a great linguist. I believe art and science are intrinsically connected, most of the great scientists had creative artistic minds (Einstein) also Artists create approaches to things which can be scientifically examined (Bach).
JimBowie1133 2 months ago
@the1musiclad , science is a process of obtaining better descriptions for the physical world around us, it looks for concrete laws and to make exact predictions. The scientific method is very difficult to apply fully to human behavior because it is not truly possible/ethical to observe and manipulate human beings and groups in controlled settings in the same way as it is to with atoms, molecules, etc. Bottom line, Physical science deals with 'things' and people are not 'things'.
JimBowie1133 2 months ago
@JimBowie1133 - what is really the distinction between 'people' and 'things' though? I consider the skin of a human being just as much a 'thing' as the bark of a tree. Similarly, I consider the vocal tract a 'thing'. I consider the brain a 'thing'. I consider SOUND a thing. The brain is potentially just as observable as anything in nature.
the1musiclad 2 months ago
@the1musiclad ,Its complicated but I think there is a difference. The moment you separate the bark from the tree it becomes a thing , but before that it was alive as part of the tree and not something external to the whole tree, even though we describe it as so. People, animals, trees etc...are made of 'matter' but they are not simply 'matter'. I guess they are 'things' with observable consciousness and conscious expression.
JimBowie1133 2 months ago
@JimBowie1133 I don't believe anything is 'created' by a linguist except theory. There is extensive experimentation on the physical world done reguarly by linguists. The whole basis of modern lingusistic theory works on the assumption it is science. Furthermore, exact predictions are possible within phonology and child langauge acquisition. Syntactic theory and sociolinguistics are very much social sciences however many parts of linguistics are what I would call physical science.
the1musiclad 2 months ago
@the1musiclad , I guess the better word for 'creation' is 'discovery', a creation and a discovery are similar. For example music scales weren't in essence 'created' by people, they were discoveries of frequency patterns which exist in nature. I am not really schooled in linguistics, but in the trend in the modern social sciences in general the approach is to try follow a purely scientific model, in order to be deemed legit, I think this approach has been very limiting.
JimBowie1133 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sheldon is such a science snob. Sociology rules!
Blackman1000ify 4 months ago
@Blackman1000ify
Enjoy not finding a job
uni4dfx 4 months ago 155
@uni4dfx Dude... That was mean...
densetsuhadouken116 3 months ago
@uni4dfx that is a quite dumb answer. We should study a science not for finding a job but for the love of knowledge.
I study Sociology and i don't think that it is a "Science", although, with its methodology we can better understand how society works.
But at the end the social sciences conclusions are merely common sense observations. There are no real theories in social sciences, the term theory should not be applied to a intellectual thin field as the social sciences. I do agree with sheldon
ApplausableGuy 3 months ago 2
@ApplausableGuy Theres no reason I can see that sociiology couldnt become a respectable field of science if people took the right course of action.and methodology Learn how to learn about people before attempting to learn about people, learn how to learn about societies before learning about societies.
ronocko 3 months ago
@ApplausableGuy , I disagree with you ( and Noam Chomsky) on that point. Maybe there are no 'laws' but there are theories of human behavior and development that have sound solid statistical backing. For example Piaget's theories on human development, Erikson's theories on life stages, Emile Durkheim's theories on suicide. It is very easy to call them common sense observations after the ideas have been laid out by the one's who studied and explained the phenomenon.
JimBowie1133 3 months ago
@JimBowie1133 Durkheim showed that Protestants, males, singles, may be more likely to suicide than other people, but that is just a statistical proof and it is very descriptive and very little. He also had a very radical holistic methodology and ignored the individual problems.
Social sciences can't overcome the demarcation problem because the social knowledge is intellectually thin. The social scientists are influenced by ideology, common sense, ethnocentrism and personal interest in their work
ApplausableGuy 3 months ago
@ApplausableGuy , no, it is a theory backed up by statistical proof, and behind it opens up the questions of how and why those variables affect human behavior in regards to suicide. It is only 'very little' if you just look at just the face of the theory. I agree there are limits to the types of studies that can be done due to ethics and practicality. Human subjects are not available to be manipulated and observed in controlled settings as is done with molecules and atoms.
JimBowie1133 3 months ago
Comment removed
rivet138 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uni4dfx sociologists have pretty much the same chance of finding a job as pure phyiscians and mathematicians do outside of a University
rivet138 3 months ago
@uni4dfx I find it funny when people in the "hard" sciences think their degree makes them more employable. Unless you go into research and academia, concrete knowledge about the natural sciences isn't super useful in the work force. Writing and communication skills are.
Baronzann 2 months ago
@Baronzann surely your joking.
skydome29 1 month ago
@uni4dfx
Citation needed. Don't be an ass, especially if you're not going to back it up (you know, the way science works).
pa112358TRICK 1 month ago
@Blackman1000ify oh hell no...
ajthrax1 3 months ago
@ajthrax1 Fuck off!
loneliness303 3 months ago
@Blackman1000ify was that sarcasm? :)
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
@Blackman1000ify I heard McDonalds has a graduate scheme for people like you..
89murph 1 month ago
@89murph BURN!!!! hahaha I love you
thePANDASgirl13 2 weeks ago
@Narrowgaugefilms
I used to make jokes about social science, economics, business etc,.... sometimes even biology, basically everything that is not chemistry, physics, mathematics. I got my fancy degree but I understand now I was behaving like a bully, hurting the feelings of people around me. Of course, people smile, laugh cuz they love you but mocking everything they worked for is NOT cool. They may not show it but it hurts, trust me. Dont be obnoxious like me, you will regret it.
12armstrong 4 months ago
Sheldon always has the coolest shirts
N8mont4 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 5 months ago
where do they get all those nerd outfits =D
Dimcair 5 months ago
Social Sciences aren't sciences lol, engineering, chem, and bio are. Please, for god's sakes, don't call soc sci anything but an artsie faculty.
Losuol 5 months ago
@Losuol: You don't know what the word science means. Engineering is NOT a science. It is a practical application of physics. Just like medicine is not a science, biology is a science. Science is systematic study of & theorizing about the workings of nature. The application knowledge thus obtained is the acquisition of that knowledge. But then I find that most people in the "hard" sciences have a poor grasp of basic logic, failing to see the philosophical foundations of their own field.
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
Social "sciences" are not sciences, they are scholarship. When they try to be "scientific" they usually fail, except when they gather spesific data about spesific issues.
lecterer 5 months ago
Unfuny garbage.
daEmoNicky 7 months ago
haha! I'm from the social-sciences and I find this funny..haha
dipticheerath 7 months ago 2
It's funny because it's true.
narutobeast90 8 months ago
lol @ people arguing over the existence of god in the comments of this video
dylz 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Update: As a result of Sky News AGAIN exposing Dr. Vincent McKee as a fraudster in MARCH 2011, McKee has now changed his name to PATRICK KELLY. His company is based at Jesson House, Coventry. He can change his name and his company's name every few months, but he can't change the name of the building. If you see JESSON HOUSE in the address, A V O I D the company cause he will use your credit/devbit card details to S T E A L your money.
vincent8mckee8fraud 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING TO ALL STUDENTS:Dr. Vincent McKee,who used to run a company in Coventry offering private tuition,called ICUT (UK),has now changed the name of the company to University and Academy Tutors,or UAT (GB).DO NOT approach ICUT/UAT for your tutorial needs.Dr.Vincent McKee was outed as a FRAUDSTER by Sky News in January 2011.As a result,McKee has changed his company's name & HIS OWN NAME:henow calls himself Patrick Murray &he's STILL DEFRAUDING STUDENTS.Google his name
vincent8mckee8fraud 9 months ago
The irony is that a socially inept savant dislikes a branch of study that deals with that very limitation. He rejects the limitation instead of attempting to understand or appreciate it. Also, he's a stereotype of a dogmatic and witless person. The fact that real people can connect with him on a serious or real level is just pathetic.
At any rate, this is part of why it's a comedy.
OneTrueEdge 9 months ago
@OneTrueEdge He explains that "irony" in the script. He can't use brain probes, therefore he is stuck using the enormously weak methods of the soft (i.e. social) sciences. His cartoonish logic-man character is appreciated by many because he often notices the nonsensical of day to day life. Traditional psychology and the social sciences offer us an endless string of fads with nothing more than Oprah and Dr. Phil type thoughts backing them up.
BfSkinnerPunk 9 months ago
@BfSkinnerPunk In that regard, he's completely unlike the Spock and Data characters of the same archetype; he offers no insight or complexity into the human condition from an analytic perspective. The character is more the arrogant and smarmy kind, which is not beneficial or productive, and frankly only serves to highlight his own vice and iniquity. No affirmation. This character, and television show, is the equivalent of a cheeto.
You can get what this is trying to do from better sources.
OneTrueEdge 9 months ago
@OneTrueEdge I think we agree. Like I said, he is cartoonish. He presents his criticisms to a potential public that is hearing those critiques for the first time. Many probably feel that social "science" is comparable to the natural sciences.... in fact, they've probably never considered that there is a distinction. I do not feel that this distinction is made frequently enough. Too many people give the psychological evaluation as much credence as a chemical analysis.
BfSkinnerPunk 9 months ago
@BfSkinnerPunk Yes, I think so, just for different reasons. I see your point, though. I tend to think that a mixing, or synthesis is necessary. The subjective and objective in unison with interpretation and representation. Science, like philosophy, is supposed to arrive at truths, not establish dogma or static thought. Whether it be several truths, or one universal one, the goal is the same -- so far as the mission is remembered.
OneTrueEdge 9 months ago
@People agreeing with Sheldon: He often 'sums up' topics he knows little about, in a very inaccurate way (this is a humor style his character uses often)
If you're thinking to yourself "yeah Sheldon, you tell em! psychology/social psych is so laaame!", then you too do not know enough about it.
mekkabon 10 months ago
to social "scientists" : please refer to the video by feynman on the same issue, and lea ve some comments there.
algoseer 10 months ago
There are sub fields in psychology. Cognitive , social , neuro , behavioral etc. The guy who said its a pseudoscience is ignorant.
Shakimetalmaniac 10 months ago 3
Psychology is a pseudoscience.
MasterXXChief 10 months ago
The greatest problem in the social sciences is that it is not possible to study humans as you would in the natural sciences. Whereas an object is predictable, humans are all different and erratic. Therefore obtaining objective knowledge or scientific laws is difficult if not impossible. This is coming from a undergraduate in criminology.
oskar91ron 11 months ago
hokum is a good word for it
j24800 11 months ago
3 people missed the like button because they were shaking from awsmonness.
selenawarriorsdemi3 11 months ago
I love how Sheldon says "Hi"
bascas715 11 months ago
penny is so hot!!!!!!!! i'd tap that, FACT!!!!
wahs100 1 year ago
is this show complete shit or is it just this clip?
levimon 1 year ago
The yellow stripe on Sheldon's t-shirt connects perfectly to the yellow construction tape :D 0:16
LevisLyhytaikainen 1 year ago 154
@LevisLyhytaikainen well he is a genius :)
zorgo12 9 months ago
@LevisLyhytaikainen wow, how easy it is to amaze the common folk with such commnet.
xfunnyx15 3 months ago
I'm a psychology major, and think this show is awesome, but I would rather be good at socializing with women and be shitty at physics than be really good at physics but shitty when it comes to interpersonal relationships
trickmastermonkey 1 year ago 3
@trickmastermonkey Too bad you're shitty at both. You are a weak man.
ltohang 11 months ago
@ltohang go kill yourself
trickmastermonkey 10 months ago
@trickmastermonkey fucking lmao @ mad underwater basketweaving major. id kill myself too if i majored in social sciences. u mad u wasted your pathetic life on a worthless major? u mad?
ltohang 10 months ago
@ltohang no I'm not mad.. I just think the reason why you have so much hate trying to bring other people down is that deep inside you know it's true, that you're a worthless piece of shit. I bet in real life you're a fucking loser hahahah. what's the matter, got turned down by a girl? or maybe a boy? or let me guess, you're too pussy to even try am I right? did my first comment on this video hit the sweet spot? oh man, do the world a favor and don't breed ok? =)
trickmastermonkey 10 months ago 5
@trickmastermonkey fucking LOL'd. oh man, you social science majors fail beyond measure. (not that you can measure, or do anything useful in the first place). go take you and your shitty major buddies and jump off a bridge and do the world a favor. imagine what a great world it would be if all you useless majors are just genocided. this is my last comment in this useless conversation. i'm gonna go do something useful now. u mad
ltohang 10 months ago
Social science rules! I love everything from psychology, sociology, anthropology, human environment, history, political science, criminology.
tmla 1 year ago 14
@tmla Same! Social sciences rock :)!
TheTwentyQuestions 7 months ago
Social sciences are like astrology or creationism. They start with the conclusion and then look for facts to support it rather than look at the facts and then form a conclusion. It is of no value but I did take several social science courses for the easy credit.
cavejourney 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cavejourney "Social sciences are like astrology or creationism. They start with the conclusion and then look for facts to support it rather than look at the facts and then form a conclusion. It is of no value but I did take several social science courses for the easy credit" Same here. :>
Neueregel 2 months ago
@tmla But the "science" that is produced by it is in almost all the cases very very questionable.... Just today here in Holland, there was a big deal on the news about a professor in Psychology who contributed to countless "scientific articles" and books with data that was obtained by.... well himself! Haha... He said he went to various schools trying to obtain as much data as possible to prove his theory. He propably couldnt prove his theory in the "good way", so he made all his shit up!
dilic 4 months ago
Oh god...people are again arguing here about science and religion...how about discussing about the show and not to make anyone mad?
HyperGolem 1 year ago
Is there any reason why people are debating about God and the Bible here? This video doesn't even reference or challenge them.
GaolisVideoLog 1 year ago
The yellow stripe on Sheldons shirt merges with the yellow tape in the background....wonder if it was thought out..they're at the exact same angle
mikekimikekimike 1 year ago 3
Also, you ask what slavery has to do with religion. Nothing obviously in the context that I originally pointed out. But interestingly enough, your Jesus doesn't seem to think it was a bad idea.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
"If you get purely technical it isn't?" science is just the method with which you attempt to understand something. social science follows the laws and methodology of science and statistics. therefore social science is science. Social science - Sociology (Psychology Anthropology). Natural Science - Physics (Chemistry/ Biology). MATH is the language. STATS is the only thing that binds us all together.
demonson161 1 year ago
@demonson161 Not even close. Sheldon is 100% right about social sciences being largely hokum. Science relies completely on facts. Social sciences relies mainly on interpretations of deluded opinions which are based on lousy research.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
sheldon is so frickin hilarious!!!!
writerchickful 1 year ago
Jim Parsons is a great actor, and he totally deserved the Emmy.
SEHANO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a great show!!
MainManAus 1 year ago
I think it's adorable that Sheldon considers Penny a friend and that he values her feedback enough to give her a questionnaire.
srayj 1 year ago 4
playfullness ;p;p;p XD
glenn0010 1 year ago
As an undergraduate in the "Hokum" sciences (Poli Sci/ Econ) I totally agree. For some reason we can't just take a population, put them in an isolated system (e.g. an island), and see how they react to a Totalitarian regime that promotes free market economy... its apparently un-ethical.
HeshMetalhead 1 year ago 5
@HeshMetalhead Actually, many years ago (during WWII I believe) there was a study that looked at how kids made out under a system that approximated Democracy and one that approximated a Dictatorship. They did better in the Democratic system.
padawan6691 1 year ago
@HeshMetalhead
"Totalitarian regime... that promotes free market economy"
Oxymoron
Wraith23 1 year ago
@HeshMetalhead i just iked ur name "metalhead" :P
imasticker 1 year ago
My wife is a social worker and I love ribbing her about having a Bachelors of "Science". I saw this when we were watching "Big Bang" and it made my day!
Narrowgaugefilms 1 year ago
I like science in religion: one requires faith while the other concrete facts! I wont say which is which. Thats my statement and not an invitaion to debate!
Jaieliza 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i think there is a huge difference between science and religion. religion is trying to explain why and science is trying to explain how. no more fights please :P
sheldon <333
mushroomism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mushroomism Religion is trying to explain why? What are you 12?
Religion doesn't explain anything, it just bluntly makes things up on the spot, while science actually does the hard work of investigating.
uni4dfx 1 year ago 27
@uni4dfxooooh really. there is the question why human exist. in christianity the answer is that god made us to protect every life on earth. there is a why and there is an answer e_e. i dont even believe in god im just saying what happens. and plus by offending me you dont make your arguement stronger.
mushroomism 1 year ago
@uni4dfx the word to remember is theory. religion and science both try to explain why and how. but if you just stop listening to opinions & do research you find out how insightful religions can be. for example, much that is said in the bible is scientific fact (esp. regarding creation....i know) if you just read the book instead of listening to other haters, you may see that. but everyone's entitled to their opinion. but jus cuz u may not be religious doesnt mean ur smarter than those who are
redskies49 1 year ago
@uni4dfx that's why it's trying
they said nothing about it suceeding
Kail221991 1 year ago
@uni4dfx You never heard of religion scholars? Or scientific theories? They both make your statement bogus.
MegaRockMan1 1 year ago
@MegaRockMan1
I don't see how religious scholors or scientific theories makes uni4dfx's argument 'bogus'. Can you explain your comment to me?
nielso212 1 year ago
@nielso212 He said all religion does is make stuff up on the spot. Scientific theory is drawing an untestable conclusion based on observation(s). In other words, he gave a crude definition for scientific theory to try and slander religion. In addition, there are religious scholars who research religious philosophy, so it's not all just the "God did it" crap you hear from red-necks...
MegaRockMan1 1 year ago
@uni4dfx oh please all science does is make theories and say they are true. you all think that the universe andl ife was created by chance?????
Idiocies of people astound me.... the big bang was created by 2 substances.... where did they come from??? you all believe that something comes from something so where did those come from........ hmmmm.....atleast religion gives people something to believe. it gives them something to live for.... not living against it.
B4n5h33Chess 1 year ago
@B4n5h33Chess
Wow, either you are a troll or an incredibly misinformed stupid person.
1) Science does not make theories, that's religion. Science evaluates evidence and explains it.
2) Nobody is saying the universe and life was created by chance. That's just retarded.
3) Where did everything come from? Where did your dumbass god come from then? Oh he's "eternal" herp derp, but the universe can't be eternal rite.
4) Religion gives people something to live for? Cry more because there's no god.
uni4dfx 1 year ago 3
@uni4dfx A lot of people say the universe and life was made by chance. If you don't think God did it, other than chance, what DO you think people say it came from?
And there is a God. Miracles happen and atheists who actually examine them acknowledge that there is no explanation for them. Stop saying there isn't when you can't know for absolute certain that there isn't.
adrimare1 1 year ago
@adrimare1 Just because an Atheist doesn't have an explanation doesn't make your explanation right. If somebody asks us "What is the moon made out of?" and I say I don't know, and you say "Macaroni and Cheese" you aren't right by default because I don't have an answer. Why don't you learn some basic logic? Oh wait, I'm wasting my time. As House said, "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people." And if miracles are true, what about amputees?
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod You've probably heard this before, but God wants us to believe in Him because of faith, not by giving us too much proof that nobody could deny it. That's for the end of the world.
And about the 'who created God' thing, philosophy states that there has to be an uncaused causer for everything because otherwise nothing would exist. I believe that God is that Uncaused Causer.
adrimare1 1 year ago
@uni4dfx Regarding point #4, I kindly ask that you please watch a movie entitled "Serenity" by a Joss Whedon. If you have already seen it, please watch it again and note the recurring message about the importance of belief.
I understand religion and belief are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough that the message remains the same: rightly placed belief is essential for those seeking a meaningful life. Hopefully the movie will help you understand this. Have a good day.
sbunkboy3 1 year ago
@uni4dfx 1) agree 2) agree 3) Science can't proove or disproove the existence of god, thereby there can't be an answer to this question. It is up for belief, and you belief he is not here. 4) Religion, can as anything else, be the base of your way of looking at life and thereby give people something to live for. Like: spreading the same happiness you feel. Do you work for the inquisition? You do sound like one with your stupid insults and ignorance towards others belief! need a cookie?
zorgo12 9 months ago
@uni4dfx
that's not very nice
Albyiscool 9 months ago
@uni4dfx Science uses current understandings to identify and explain phenomina rationally. Nothing about that refutes the existence of a God whatsoever. If you were to truely take the scientific approach to the question the answer would have to be undertermined, which means that there is no way of knowing either way whether a God does or does not exist. Religion is the gap between taking the unknowable and applying faith to one answer or another.
mynameismatt2010 9 months ago
@uni4dfx So saying there is no god is having a religion.
Saying that nobody is saying that life was created by chance is denying the driving principles behind the idea of a godless existence. If life was not created by chance then it was created by design, if it was created by design then there must have been a designer. That designer would be what pepole call God.
Assuming the universe is eternal denies astrological evidence putting the age of the universe at around 14.6 billion years old.
mynameismatt2010 9 months ago
@uni4dfx 1. You're confusing theory with hypothesis. Theories come from testing hypotheses and proving or disproving them. That IS science!; 3. Current evidence points to the Big Bang as the origin of the universe. If the universe were eternal, all matter would be long decayed into the most simple elements; 4. A common fallacy is that if one believes in something one calls "God", one must be a fundie Christian who interperts the Bible literally. What if "God" is the Universe? Or the Diest God?
MVillani1985 9 months ago
@B4n5h33Chess someone else already responded to other parts of what you said, so I'll just throw this back at ya: You think "God" just appeared by chance?
WiccanHighPriest0 1 year ago
@B4n5h33Chess As House said, "It isn't about what's fun, it's about the truth." Additionally, your logic is insane. Your argument is basically this, "This is too complex, so it had to be created by something." That opens the question to "Well if the universe is so complicated that it had to be created by God, then who created God? And who created the thing that created God? And so on and so forth. Go read a book you ignorant buffoon.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@uni4dfx Religion mostly is faith based. It is true that religion attempts to explain those things that science has not explained. The universe is a vast place. It is natural for many to believe in a higher power (even some respected scientists). You are entitled to your opinion on religion and God, but it is not necessary to be condescending. Extend courtesy to others that have a differing opinion. One may not be able to prove there is a God, but remember that one cannot prove that there isn't.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 Yet another religious idiot. The burden of proof isn't on me. If I said that I saw bigfoot in the bathroom at Disneyland, *I* would have to prove to you that what I say is true, it wouldn't be your job to prove me wrong. Additionally, what you argue is called "God of the gaps reasoning." Even most theologists think it is bad because as science advances there are less places for your God to hide.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod A perfect example of why it is pointless to have an enlightening conversation with a person that harbors such hatred towards differing opinions. I have nothing against you for not believing in God. If you will look back at my comment, you will notice that I didn't place the burden of proof on anyone. I was simply stating that no one could prove one side or the other. Note that just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I hate advances in science. It allows me to know God even more.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 I don't hate different opinions, I hate stupidity.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod See I couldn't say I disliked stupidity because I believe it to be too broad a term and exceedingly condescending. As for me, I dislike rudeness. I also dislike it when people are unwilling to debate things like an adult without adding useless words to bring down others. I'm sure many would be willing to have an educational conversation with you if you left out phrases such as "ignorant buffoon" and "deluded opinions." These phrases are useless in debating the issue at hand.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 Once again, House said it best "If rational arguments worked on religious people, there would be no religious people." Ergo, there is no point in having a rational debate with a religious person. They are presented with a rational argument, and they create a silly rationalization. And the wheels on the bus go round and round.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod There are many things one can learn about history and culture through examination of the Bible and other religious texts. They are fascinating fragments of our development through time. Also, debating religion and the existence of a God promotes philosophical and logical thinking regardless if you're a believer or not. Many brilliant thinkers (Aquinas, Darwin, Lewis) were theologians. Hm, quoting House a fictional character? Nice "rational" argument to prove your point. Duly noted.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 As I said, creating rationalizations is all you people are good at. Should I comment on the irony of somebody that quotes The Bible bitching about a fictional character being quoted? Or how that hardly discredits the argument? Also, discussing religion demeans logical arguments. Take your arguments for example. Many brilliant people were religious, so what? Many also owned slaves, does that make slavery a good idea?
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod Really should read more carefully. I did not quote the Bible. I stated that history and culture could be studied through religious texts. This is a fact acknowledged by historians (unlike House). I did not say logical argument, I stated logical "thinking." Again, considering it is a part of the philosophy department it does stretch the walls of your mind. I did not state they were religious, I said they were theologians. BIG difference. Not all theologians are religious, but they...
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 ...study religion to study the human race. What does slavery have to do with religion? Believers and non-believers alike owned slaves. There is no distinction. But, what can I say? Your brilliance far surpasses mine. I'm a complete moron despite my three degrees. Oh well.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@awalkinggod Oh, if you're like Sheldon, envision me holding up a "sarcasm" sign.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 You named smart people who were religious as a justification for it being a good idea, I was pointing out that many smart people owned slaves and that just because somebody was smart and happened to be religious or owned slaves doesn't mean a thing. As for smart people and religion, it is a well known fact that the smarter you are the less likely you are to be religious. How shocking? Stupid people are more likely to believe bullshit! Crazy talk! To be continued....
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 And if you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't be hiding behind pieces of paper, which is all a degree is.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod Yea, slave argument is a bit all over the place. I didn't state it was a justification for religion being a good thing, I was making the argument that one can have an intelligent conversation with a person who is a believer and knowledgeable about religion. One point I must make, there is a difference between being a believer and being religious. What is your justification of Einstein believing in a higher power? He was an extremely intelligent man. The point I'm trying to make...
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@awalkinggod ...is that just because someone believes in a God (be that Jehovah or the monkey at the center of the Earth) doesn't mean they are stupid, and you are ignorant in assuming that. I do not assume all atheists are jerks just because I have one bad encounter. That is counterproductive to society. I don't hide behind paper honey, if I did I wouldn't continue to challenge you with historical references, broad thinking and a vocabulary that doesn't slander people of a particular group.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
@ASUGIRL09 You didn't quote it to me, but I'll bet you've quoted it before. Either way, you don't say a word about the argument instead you attack the source. How very logical of you. And do I sense some hostility from you? Would Jesus want you to be hostile? Oh no, it looks as though I've met another religious hypocrite.
awalkinggod 1 year ago
@awalkinggod I have quoted it before, when people have been curious about it and in trying to connect different parts of the Bible. It can be quite an interesting discussion. The Bible is a great read regardless if you believe it or not (you should check out the Oxford Annotated one, pretty cool historical references). I can't say anything about the argument if it doesn't properly address what was said. I hold no hostility towards you. I'm actually having fun articulating myself.
ASUGIRL09 1 year ago
Reconciling religion and science is easy. All you have to do is acknowledge that one has nothing to do with the other. To say that religion and science can't coexist is like saying that a love of cheesecake and hockey can't coexist. They have nothing to do with each other and liking one doesn't preclude or reinforce a preference for the other.
HisDivineShadow245 1 year ago
Fancy word for bullshit!!
bloombergin 2 years ago 3
I don't really care for social science but its rather funny how most other scientists disclaim the social sciences as an actual science. I said 'science' too much there, so I hope it still made sense...
BlimeyBomb 2 years ago 4
lol like string theory has any validity at this point.
Alvin4president 2 years ago
i do not get why people call it "science". it is not science, it is just observation of people who has not same values or same opinions in any time.
tarananakon 2 years ago
Sheldon IS right...the social sciences ARE largely hokum.
Niobium2000 2 years ago 8
I suppose this is your well informed scientifical observation?
Herbstkoenigin 2 years ago 3
@Niobium2000 bullshit.
uglyduckling89 1 year ago
@Niobium2000
Bullshit.
thestranger4812 10 months ago
thanks
Drmanhattan89 2 years ago
what its mean hokum?
Drmanhattan89 3 years ago
bullshit
and2222rew 2 years ago 5
thanks.
Drmanhattan89 2 years ago 2
it means bullshit! not true.
GRANTJPEARCE 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Totally hokum! I know so many people (including myself) who have seen psychologists. I know no one who was ever helped by any of that hokum.
padawan6691 2 years ago
Psychology is not a social science.
uni4dfx 2 years ago 14
I was wondering if anyone was going to say that. Some experts consider it a social science, some don't. If you get purely technical, it isn't, but for practical purposes, it is. The important thing is Sheldon was talking about the Psychology of Friendship (or love), which is a subject studied by Psychologists (Go to any College or University and take a course called Social Psychology. You will learn about what causes people to like and love one another.).
padawan6691 2 years ago 26
@padawan6691 "Go to any College or University and take a course called Social Psychology" I'd rather not. Academia has pretty much destroyed the world I live in. I look at things from a completely different angle now and wouldn't destroy the last enee-wenee bit of romance (in a literary sense) that is left. But thanks for the offer.
GaolisVideoLog 1 year ago
@uni4dfx It is widely controversial. It is considered even a pseudo-science.
octavio025 1 year ago
@uni4dfx It is classed as a social science at University
StephenAlexWalker 1 year ago
@uni4dfx lol you're right, psychology isn't even a science
scimath42 10 months ago
@uni4dfx Psychology is an empirical science -> is a science
MrNinecrimes 10 months ago
You're kidding right? Let me guess you are an avid believer of the church of scientology? Personally, I would apply hokum towards what you just said.
Radwar99 2 years ago
You're funny. I have heard of the church of scientology. I am not quite sure what it is, but I guess it doesn't really matter since religion is even more hokum than the social sciences lol. Read what I said above, I have seen psychologists for years, and I know many people who have similarly seen psychologists, it simply doesn't work. Totally hokum.
padawan6691 2 years ago
I'm sorry, what makes you say that religion is hokum? Why can't religion and science coexist?
ilikestuffing889 2 years ago
There are a million reasons why religion is hokum. A small sample: A big part of religion is the idea that we can choose how we act and if we are good we go to heaven, if we are bad we go to hell. A large amount of scientific evidence strongly disagrees. For example, there is the study that found that people born into families with criminals but immediately adopted into families without criminals are still more likely to become criminals themselves. Evidence for genes for criminality.
padawan6691 2 years ago