The Penis NEVER lies

The difference in temperature between two objects can be empirically measured and compared, provided that the way we understand material and energy physics is perfectly symmetric to the rules that govern the Universe.

There is no such thing as "empirical" except in the minds of people. What you're arguing is that there is a degree of empiricality that makes information stop existing.
 
There is such a thing as empirical, an electron has a certain charge, has a certain spin, and has a certain mass at a certain velocity. Those are empirical properties of an electron, and any particle that matches these porperties is classified as an electron.

Homophobia, is a vague dislike/fear/uncomfortableness with homosexauls. A homosexual, we could say is someone who has sex with their own gender, but according to thsi study a homosexual may not like homosexuals, and may not know they are a homosexual. That is not empirical.

There was a study poster here a while ago stating that self identified conservative were less intellegent tahn self identified liberals. Niether conservative or liberal are empirical terms. Hence not science.
 
Tell it to Durkheim and Weber, bitches.
 
Mr Stabby said:
There is such a thing as empirical, an electron has a certain charge, has a certain spin, and has a certain mass at a certain velocity. Those are empirical properties of an electron, and any particle that matches these porperties is classified as an electron.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what happens if I ask you WHY the electron has a certain charge and spin? What if I ask you "why" of the answer you give to that? It won't be long before you're forced to say "I don't know". And the same goes for every piece of information ever compiled in the history of our species. Take "empirical" knowledge far enough and you realise we don't actually know anything for certain at all. How is a 480nm wavelength "blue"? Why does matter produce gravity?

Mr Stabby said:
Homophobia, is a vague dislike/fear/uncomfortableness with homosexauls. A homosexual, we could say is someone who has sex with their own gender, but according to thsi study a homosexual may not like homosexuals, and may not know they are a homosexual. That is not empirical.
Click to expand...
What's "not empirical" is the specific homophobic homosexual's perception of himself.

Basically, what you said is this: "Empirical observation found a person that did not empirically observe themselves. This invalidates my observation of the person." What?

Mr Stabby said:
There was a study poster here a while ago stating that self identified conservative were less intellegent tahn self identified liberals. Niether conservative or liberal are empirical terms. Hence not science.
Click to expand...
I take it you didn't read the paper. I read it twice through, start to finish, and there is no way I would call what I read "not science".
 
Stigmata said:
Okay, but what happens if I ask you WHY the electron has a certain charge and spin? What if I ask you "why" of the answer you give to that? It won't be long before you're forced to say "I don't know". And the same goes for every piece of information ever compiled in the history of our species. Take "empirical" knowledge far enough and you realise we don't actually know anything for certain at all. How is a 480nm wavelength "blue"? Why does matter produce gravity?
Click to expand...

To classify something as an electron you only need observe it's properties. Why it has the properties doesn't effect the ability to observe and classify it. The things we don't know don't change the things we can measure.

What's "not empirical" is the specific homophobic homosexual's perception of himself.

Basically, what you said is this: "Empirical observation found a person that did not empirically observe themselves. This invalidates my observation of the person." What?


I take it you didn't read the paper. I read it twice through, start to finish, and there is no way I would call what I read "not science".
Click to expand...

Do you know what science is?
 
Appeal to Authority, followed by an unproven declaration. Thank you for proving my hypothesis - you know which one I mean.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Was it proved using your version of science?
Click to expand...

It was proven using formal logic, now quit being an asshat. You damn well know what constitutes appeal to authority or an unproven statement. Petty questions like that just make you look immature.
 
We're having a PM flame war, where he claims I don't understand science.
 
Mr Stabby said:
It's not scientific then. Science is a certain thing, which this does not meet the criteria of.

Really this is just occam's razor deductive reasoning, and it may be right, but it ain't science.
Click to expand...

You may be a physicist but you don't sound like a scientist. There is a great book called The Canon, and its all about scientific inquiry. The book opens up without the point that Science is not a set of facts, but a mindset where one explores phenomena and finds the various variables. Every time you test something, every time you explore the relations between two things, that is science.

What purpose does it serve to shit all over another field of scientific inquirery? How is your "scientific" physics marred by sharing the term "science" with psychology and human behavior studies?

Science is a humble field, where you are wrong more often than you are right. Ego's do not belong.
 
There are certain high standards something must meet in order to be proper science.

If science is just applying reasoned skepticism, to anything, then all intellectual pursuits are scientific , and it is a redundent term.

This study sure doesn't meet the bar. Apperantely that makes me a homosexual egotist, for saying so.
 
Really this sounds like the first step in a series of experiments. First they established a correlation, and now the next step will be to examine what happens in the mind and body to trigger this reaction despite the subjects claims of no stimulation. This is preliminary stuff, but that does not mean its not science.
 
If it turns into a biology experiment, it would be science. Fear and hate can be measured on an MRI scan, that however is biology and not a social science.

This isn't a prelimanry step of real science, it's supposedly a field of science in itself to take questionares as evidence.
 
Mr Stabby said:
There are certain high standards something must meet in order to be proper science.

If science is just applying reasoned skepticism, to anything, then all intellectual pursuits are scientific , and it is a redundent term.
Click to expand...

I may not be interested in the social sciences all that much, but that is a stupid statement. Each and every field of science out there has its share of bogus studies, just as each of them have made great discoveries. You may happen to hear more about silly psychological or socialogical studies in the news, but that does not mean the field as a whole cannot be considered "true science".
 
So, one of my A-Levels is in Sociology (Yes, you may think that is lame and English Language was my main field of study) but we always used Scientific methods in our research just like every other form of Science. Just because a conclusion can't always be drawn empirically doesn't make something "Not Science".

Basically, Sociology and Social Science attempt interpretive understanding of social action in order to arrive at causal explanation of its cause and effect through use of both qualitative and quantitative data. It might be applied Science but it's nonetheless a form of Science.
 
I've took several classes in both natural science and social sciences, and I don't think you can group them together. This is not out of disrespect for the social sciences, which I find always interesting. Social sciences won't ever be an exact science despite all the quantitative research methods and statistical analysis that you can do. In natural sciences, cause and effect is like solid mathematics. Social sciences will always vary, and the best that we can do is focus on the average reaction of a person. Human feelings are not quantitative, because everything that we think is completely and totally relative. So, in a way, I agree with Mr. Stabby that social science is not true science.

I do wish that you guys would stop bickering.
 
Wanted Bob said:
I may not be interested in the social sciences all that much, but that is a stupid statement. Each and every field of science out there has its share of bogus studies, just as each of them have made great discoveries. You may happen to hear more about silly psychological or socialogical studies in the news, but that does not mean the field as a whole cannot be considered "true science".
Click to expand...


Having wirtten scientific reports at an undergraduate level for physics, I can tell you ambiguity is strongly penalised in physics, (unless well explained, why there are errors etc). Ambiguity is not evidently an issue in sociology, as the actual published papers that are chock full of it.


Putting this kind of science on parity with the natural sciences, is absurd to me.



Stylo said:
So, one of my A-Levels is in Sociology (Yes, you may think that is lame and English Language was my main field of study) but we always used Scientific methods in our research just like every other form of Science. Just because a conclusion can't always be drawn empirically doesn't make something "Not Science".

Basically, Sociology and Social Science attempt interpretive understanding of social action in order to arrive at causal explanation of its cause and effect through use of both qualitative and quantitative data. It might be applied Science but it's nonetheless a form of Science.
Click to expand...

Sceince is not just the scientific method, it's the evidence you start with, which is NOT empirical in social sciences. If vague evidence is permisable, then you can prove just about anything, that suits you.
 
I'm heterosexual but can get a boner from gay porn. Verified.

...though I'm too insecure and I'd think i would feel weird while fappin't to gay pr0n.
 
BabyHeadCrab said:
I'm heterosexual but can get a boner from gay porn. Verified.
Click to expand...


lets see what Andrew Dice Clay has to say about the issue:


And bisexuals. Let me explain something to you. There is no bisexual. You either suck dick, or you do not suck dick. I mean, what do these guys do, get up in the morning and flip a coin to decide? Heads I want hairpie, tails- balls across the nose! Oh! And they're too sensitive man. They don't know if they wanna be called gays, fairies, homosexuals. I call 'em cocksuckers! I think that about spells it out. The gays want their rights, I'll give them their rights. 10% off of vaseline now get the **** back in the closet!
Click to expand...


I'm kidding but you're probably at least a little bit .... .. festive. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT
 
I always kinda figured Stern for a homo. I read all your posts in my head with a flamboyent, very exagerated gay voice. He also probably have something for italien men, that's why he keeps confusing me with them.
 
Rizzo said:
I always kinda figured Stern for a homo. I read all your posts in my head with a flamboyent, very exagerated gay voice. He also probably have something for homos, that's why he keeps confusing me with them.
Click to expand...

fixed
 
sexual orientation is a false dichotomy. it's not a toggle, it's a fluid thing. you are not either heterosexual or homosexual, everyone is born bisexual
 
It probably has something to do with the viewer being 'reminded' about the fun one can have when his penis is stimulated. If they played them a video with straight sex afterwards they would probably have measured more of a penis reaction.


Mr Stabby said:
Putting this kind of science on parity with the natural sciences, is absurd to me.

Sceince is not just the scientific method, it's the evidence you start with, which is NOT empirical in social sciences. If vague evidence is permisable, then you can prove just about anything, that suits you.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is trying to say that social sciences are on par with natural sciences in terms of isolating variables and measuring them. But we're saying that it is still science, while you so fiercely deny it that label. Yes, there is a difference in dealing with quantitative and qualitative variables. Your definition of science seems to be limited only to hard science.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Having wirtten scientific reports at an undergraduate level for physics, I can tell you ambiguity is strongly penalised in physics, (unless well explained, why there are errors etc). Ambiguity is not evidently an issue in sociology, as the actual published papers that are chock full of it.


Putting this kind of science on parity with the natural sciences, is absurd to me.
Click to expand...

Ambiguity is always an issue, doesnt matter whether its physics, sociology, biology, whatever. No paper is ever written with 100% certainty or finality - I have learned that much in my time working in an actual lab and co-authoring a paper. Physics has undergone several paradigm changes in the past couple hundreds of years, so it certainly is subject to error just as sociology is.
 
Stylo said:
Wait, what?
Click to expand...

Humans don't represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. It's a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, the sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex. Appropriate patterns of reproductive, gender, and sexual conduct are all products of specific cultures and are examples of socially scripted conduct. Our dichotomy of sexuality is only a culture construct.
Check this out http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html In this representation, at least 80% of the population is bisexual to some degree
 
Mogi67 said:
Humans don't represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. It's a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, the sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex. Appropriate patterns of reproductive, gender, and sexual conduct are all products of specific cultures and are examples of socially scripted conduct. Our dichotomy of sexuality is only a culture construct.
Click to expand...

It would be great if you provided some sources, for a statement like that.
 
LibDem said:
It would be great if you provided some sources, for a statement like that.
Click to expand...
What, you think there's only three categories of human sexuality? Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality, (asexuality also)? In reality there's an infinite range between the two extremes. It's not as though one could quantify whether someone is 100% hetero or homo, or bisexual and would go for either sex all of the time, or if one is bisexual and would only have sex with a certain person of the same gender. How do you know for certain that you are of one sexuality? You could wake up tomorrow and be confused, I mean how well do you really know yourself? What if you have a dream tonight that you have sex with a man, and when you wake up tomorrow and are ashamed or freaked out by it, you suppress the thought. Yet it's there in your subconscious. Sexuality isn't something that's easily pigeon-holed
 
Well, I can't say I've ever felt the need to devour a burly man's cock so the percentage of gay that resides within me must just contribute to the fact that I use hairspray.
 
Mogi67 said:
What, you think there's only three categories of human sexuality? Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality, (asexuality also)? In reality there's an infinite range between the two extremes. It's not as though one could quantify whether someone is 100% hetero or homo, or bisexual and would go for either sex all of the time, or if one is bisexual and would only have sex with a certain person of the same gender. How do you know for certain that you are of one sexuality? You could wake up tomorrow and be confused, I mean how well do you really know yourself? What if you have a dream tonight that you have sex with a man, and when you wake up tomorrow and are ashamed or freaked out by it, you suppress the thought. Yet it's there in your subconscious. Sexuality isn't something that's easily pigeon-holed
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did any part of my statement contain an opinion? All I was asking for was a source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
"If you get raped during the night it's your own fault"
Replies
17
Views
1K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Raziaar
Mandatory Circumcision
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
DEATHMASTER
DEATHMASTER
Back
Top